Lords Chamber

Wednesday 7th May 2025

(began 6 months, 1 week ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
reason why as part of our approach to supporting children with special educational needs we are keen to ensure that children do receive the right support they need to succeed, where possible in mainstream schools. That may well involve resourced units within those schools that will enable those smaller more personalised provision the noble Lord is talking about. We have of course made additional capital available as well as the £1 billion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

more in additional high needs funding to help to begin that work. Second Oral Question, Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Smith. I beg leave to ask the question

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the order paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Prime Minister speaks regularly with the first Minister of Wales as part of the research relationship with the government of. relationship with the government of. They spoke last week range of issues on how we deliver our share on how we deliver our share priorities. The brightness and First Minister work together on behalf of our two governments on behalf of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our two governments on behalf of the great nations and regions, this is in addition to their engagement. I thank her for her answer. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her for her answer. The people of Wales were promised at the last general election that if they voted Labour they would have two governments either end of the M4, improving their lives. But yesterday the first Minister of Wales gave a speech suggesting ruptures in that relationship. And coining the new phrase "The new Welsh way", suggesting certain requests for the government to deliver on. I ask, which if any of those requests is this government going to enact?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the First Minister's speech reflected the reset
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:24
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
Wales that profit from our energy gifts. We need a different approach to the one that just hands the power and resources to the Crown estate. Over which we have no say. Not my words, but yesterday's words of the Welsh Labour First Minister, echoing the sentiments of some in this house. As she used similar words in her discussion with the Prime Minister? Was he listening? Or are we seeing the building of a new Redwall in the Bristol Channel, one dividing Welsh Labour from its UK Big Brother?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Anyone would think there might be an election within the next 12 an election within the next 12 months. We won the last one, we'll months. We won the last one, we'll win the next one. With regards to the noble Lady's question, she raises a genuine issue about the raises a genuine issue about the Crown estate which we have discussed in your Lordship's House in great detail. Which is why, thanks to the detail. Which is why, thanks to the work of my noble friend Lord Hain, we brought forward an amendment to we brought forward an amendment to bring forward a commissioner for Wales.

I think we need to look at what the Crown estate is actually what the Crown estate is actually delivering. It's 5,000 jobs, £1.4 billion boost of investment for the billion boost of investment for the people of Wales. It's delivering real things on the ground for the people of Wales. I think it's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people of Wales. I think it's important we celebrate what we are achieving. If devolution is a process, what
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:41
15:42
15:42
15:43
15:43
15:44
15:44
15:45
15:46
15:47
15:47
15:48
15:49
15:51
15:52
15:54
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-
-
be agreed to en bloc. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Second Reading of the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre- sentence Reports) Bill, Lord sentence Reports) Bill, Lord I beg to move this bill be read a I beg to move this bill be read a second time. I want to extend my thanks to the many noble Lords who already contributed to debates in this house on this matter, which provided me and the government with provided me and the government with valuable food for thought.

I'm also grateful to the noble Lords with whom I've spoken about this bill, have shared their wise counsel and have shared their wise counsel and wealth of experience regarding the wealth of experience regarding the matters on which it touches. I know all noble Lords will be looking forward to my noble friend Baroness Nicholson maiden speech, I welcome Nicholson maiden speech, I welcome her to this place and I know we will benefit from her vast experience in public service. I would like to start by recapping how we got here.

I believe it is important to understand the government's intention behind the bill. The Sentencing Council's imposition of community and custodial sentencing helps judges when sentencing an offender determine whether to impose a community order or a custodial sentence. In deciding which threshold has been met, judges are required by law to obtain a presentence report. Except in circumstances where the court considers such a report to be unnecessary. Presentence reports are used to give courts more context on offenders behaviour in a particular case, to aid judges and magistrates to make informed decisions.

The current imposition guideline makes clear presentence reports offer a valuable assistance to the court when it decides whether to impose a community or custodial sentence. Under the last government the Sentencing Council consulted on a revised imposition guideline. This guideline was due to come into effect on April 1 of this year. And includes additional guidance on when courts should request presentence reports. It noted that presentence reports will normally be considered necessary for certain offenders, including those from an ethnic, cultural or faith minority.

In effect, this could have led to offenders receiving differential treatment in terms of access to presentence reports taste on their faith or the colour of their skin. These changes were welcomed by the previous administration, by contrast both the Lord Chancellor and I have been clear that would be unacceptable, not least for the victims put their trust in the criminal justice system. It undermines the idea that we all stand equal before the law, a principle at the forefront of our justice system and our society for justice system and our society for centuries.

This is a position the Lord Chancellor communicated in person and in writing to the Sentencing Council. The Lord Chancellor first used her existing power meeting the Sentencing Council's chair on 13 March two asked to reconsider their approach. Unfortunately, the council declined to amend the guideline significantly. While the Sentencing Council remains of a different opinion to the government, I'm grateful to the chair, Lord Justice Davies, for the engagement he has had with the Chancellor and for the cordial conversations I know we will continue to have.

I am very thankful that following their engagement the Sentencing Council has paused implementation of the revised imposition guideline, while Parliament has its say. I'm also grateful to the noble Lords who have shared their expertise in this area with me. It is clear that the intention behind the Sentencing Council is changing the guidelines was an honourable one. To address the inequalities in our justice system. The issue of disparities in the crystal my criminal justice system is a serious matter, one this government is determined to address.

However this is a question of policy, one that must be addressed by government accountable to the public and Parliament and via the ballot box. As my Lords will be aware, this issue has prompted debate here and the other place, and publicly on the correct roles and responsibilities of the Sentencing Council. Which the Lord Chancellor is carefully reviewing and considering all options. I'm sure there will be more discussed in your Lordship's House in the months ahead. However, I want to be clear that this is beyond the scope of the narrow bill that we have today.

The Sentencing Council, although only 15 years old, holds an important decision within the justice system. Any changes to its function and powers must be considered carefully. I know several Lord Saville had roles on the Sentencing Council, and its predecessor, and will have valuable views to add as this is considered. It would not be right to put this through as targeted and narrow legislation. I'm proud of the judiciary and I know they are the envy of the world, rightly respected for their independence, impartiality and fairness.

I know the Lord Chancellor takes her oath to defend the independence of the judiciary seriously. I would like to reassure my Lords nothing we are considering in terms of the future of the Sentencing Council will change the government's clear commitment to defend the rule of law. I want to turn now to what the bill does, because one of amendments six -- it provides a sentencing about the presentencing reports may not include provision framed by reference to different characteristics including race, religion, belief or cultural background.

This would mean any existing guidelines on presentence reports which are framed by singling out personal characteristics will cease to have effect. The Sentencing Council will therefore not be able to make such provision in future guidelines. The changes made by this clause prevent the Sentencing Council making policy about when presentence reports should be obtained. Would risk differential treatment before the law, and would undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system. In bringing forward the bill the government's objective is to help ensure the quality might equality before the law so offenders are treated according to their own individual circumstances and not by virtue of their membership of a particular group.

We therefore use the term personal characteristics within the bill, to ensure sentencing to about presentence reports cannot include provision framed by reference to any personal characteristic of an offender. We accompany this by listing some characteristics on the face of the bill including race, religion or belief, or cultural background. However, this is a nonexhaustive list intended to give context to the term. The government intends that the bill also applies to a wider range of characteristics including sex, gender identity, physical disabilities and pregnancy.

We also used the term demographic cohort in the Bill's Explanatory Notes to help provide additional context to the meaning of personal characteristics. I would now like to make clear what the bill does not do. It does not interfere with the court's duties to obtain presentence reports inappropriate cases. For example, those involving primary carers and victims of domestic abuse. To be clear, the bill does not interfere with the court's ability to request presentence report. The sentencing code is clear that courts must obtain re- sentencing reports unless they sentencing reports unless they The independent judiciary will make decisions on where things are necessary based on the facts of the case.

Nor does it stop the sentencing Council from advising in general terms that presentence report should be sought in cases where the court would benefit from an assessment of an offenders personal circumstances. And, as detailed in the bins Explanatory Notes, it does not change existing precedent where the courts determine that presentence reports are necessary or desirable. In cases such as Thompson where the Court of Appeal recently emphasised their importance in sentencing pregnant women or women who have recently given birth, in the court referenced the court for young defendants aware defendant had a traumatic upbringing, fun ability, and was a victim of modern slavery.

The court considered these factors should have been requested. Instead, the bill narrowly focuses on the issue at hand. I welcome the use of presentence reports which are a valuable tool for sentences in appropriate cases. The number of presentence reports for 44%. The Probation Service is under a huge amount of pressure and this is indicative of wider capacity issues in the system. This government creates capacity within the Probation Service to ensure that a hard-working probation officer has more time for vital work such as this.

We have announced plans to recruit further in the year on top of a 1300 extra probation officers recruited in the last financial year. And continuing to work with the Probation Service to ensure it is able to deliver a high and consistent standard of service. We are also working to better understand what drives disparities in the common justice system. The sentencing Council itself has acknowledged that the causes of disparities in sentencing outcomes are unclear. An understanding the data is the key first step to deciding what we must do to address these disparities.

As the Lord Chancellor set out in the second reading in the other place, she has commissioned a review of the data held by the Minister of Justice on disparities in the justice system. In terms of the timeline for the review, noble Lords can rest assured that we are working at pace on this and will update the house in due course. This is something I take seriously and is determined to address, however, this cannot be done at the expense of equality before the law.

In conclusion, by preventing the sentencing Council guidelines of presentencing reports of reference to personal characteristics, this bill ensures that we all continue to stand equal before the law. I urge noble Lords to support the bill and the principle that guides it, that of equality before the law. I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move. The bill will now be read a second time. second time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a pleasure to have the opportunity and I look forward very much to the main speech of the noble Lady Baroness Nicholson of Selby. I Lady Baroness Nicholson of Selby. I broadly welcomed this legislation broadly welcomed this legislation whilst regretting its necessity and the fact that we have reached such an unsatisfactory junction. And what an unsatisfactory junction. And what I also would say is that I am indebted to policy exchange for the excellent paper on this issue which is two-tiered justice.

The impasse between the Chancellor and the between the Chancellor and the sentencing Council was significant in its problematic challenge to Parliamentary Sovereignty, its undermining of the faith and trust of public must have in the judicial system and the concept of equal
16:05
16:06
16:06
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
with the legislature and executives. The imbroglio arose from the consultation period as sentencing guidelines in duration which guidelines in duration which accommodated in January this year. The sentencing Council 's wilful The sentencing Council 's wilful refusal enunciated in its letter to refusal enunciated in its letter to the Lord Chancellor on 27 March to amend the proposed guidelines demonstrated and choose disregard for democratic proprietary is an for democratic proprietary is an legitimate criticisms of their actions in formalising to see the actions in formalising to see the sentencing and differential treatment by the courts based on membership of ethnic faith and membership of ethnic faith and cultural minorities.

This is at a time when the public is acutely aware and particularly mindful of aware and particularly mindful of the fairness and appropriateness or otherwise in a number of high- profile criminal as reported in the media. This issue transcends party plate differences. It is about whether an elected parliament who is accountable to the electorate should be pre-eminent in setting policy in judicial and relevant other related matters. It is appropriate to make the point that presentence reports are a vital tool for magistrates and judges.

Not least in securing a more comprehensive assessment of an offender and balancing the decision to impose a non-custodial or a term of imprisonment. The previous imposition guidelines quite rightly made no reference to different cohorts who should receive a presentence report, but the new guidelines reference gender, ethnicity, transgender status and addiction issues as well as Domestic Abuse Act, modern slavery, grooming and other exploitation issues. The automatic granting of a presentence report to some groups that the availability of discretionary powers to others was and is wrong.

These proposals were divisive, racist and corrosive towards community cohesion. Essentially, if you are a white man who is not religious, you are or were under a material and substantive disadvantage in the proposed sentencing regime. And the Lord Chancellor was right to highlight this in her letter to the chairman of the sentencing Council on 6 March. The fundamental question is why with these rules proposed, and on what evidential basis? The sentencing Council is imposition guidelines review of the trend analysis report of 2023 found that for those groups with the larger volumes of offenders sentenced, there is predominantly no clear evidence of differential impacts the imposition guidelines.

The noble Lady chair of the equalities commission was surely right to state on 12 March the correct constitutional position would be that a judge already has tools at their disposal to seek presentencing reports and that they do so based on an individual case on a case-by-case basis rather than categorising certain groups. And indeed, we have existing primary legislation which is in place to allow judges to discharge duties quite properly with appropriate evidential discretion through the sentencing act of 2020.

The sentencing Council consultation was flawed and inappropriate. Dominated as it was by liberal self-serving and parties and groups who disregarded the wider societal need for a criminal justice system which is fair, impartial, open and transparent. For the avoidance of doubt, it is not for a judge, however eminent to unilaterally determine sentencing policy, especially when the Lord Chancellor objects. Parliament has never legislated for it and it is clear that it is for the judiciary to interpret and apply the law and not to formulate policy on an ad hoc basis.

It is for Parliament to set overarching sentencing policy and criminal justice policy while remaining aloof from sentencing of individual offenders by trial judges and magistrates, and that goes to the courts as well. So the rationale is erroneous in interpreting the role of the sentencing Council. In its letter to the Secretary of State for Justice, it was referred stating it was decided that to remove the list would have been contrary to the majority wrote expressed by consulting, and of course, that majority view that there should be a specified list of groups who automatically receive a presentence report amongst consultees is unsurprising.

The consultation process received 150 responses of whom 40 were charity or non- governmental organisations. Of course they have every right and perhaps the duty, people like the prison reform trust, the penal reform, perfectly entitled to put forward their views, but the sentencing Council should have had a more balanced view, rather than just looking at the majority of opinion in this particularly niche and narrow consultation. The role of the government ministers and Parliament was misunderstood by the eminent Lord.

He questioned whether it was in the power of the Minister to amend section 1 of the injustice act 2009, and in respect of proposing to the sentencing Council the sentencing guideline being prepared or advised by the council, and whether it was appropriate in the intent to publish. It would seem, given the words of the statute are plain and unequivocal, to be a novel approach if the Lord Chancellor was not permitted to propose a revision of the guideline.

Lord Justice Davies also claims that the inclusion of specific cohorts in the imposition guideline is not a policy decision of any significance. But that is not the case. Even one that distinguishes Lord Justice must understand that he cannot unilaterally determine in opposition the Chancellor a policy that the government is obliged to follow. It also says in his letter all judges and magistrates are required to apply any guidelines unless the interest requires otherwise for stopping practice, the guidelines form the backbone of every sentencing decision made throughout sentencing decision made throughout England and.

There is general acceptance of the guidelines by the judiciary because they emanate from an independent body on which judicial members are in the majority. The council reserves the constitutional position of the independent judiciary in relation to sentencing. He also goes on to say in criminal seedings where the state should determine the sentencing post on an individual offender. If sentencing guidelines of whatever kind were to be dictated in anyway of ministers of the Crown, this principle would be free.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I believe that the mistake for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I believe that the mistake for the following reason. First, the critical constitutional position of the independent judiciary relates to the independent judiciary relates to the sentencing of individual offenders and not the overarching offenders and not the overarching policy. Secondly, Lord Justice Davies implies that the judiciary Davies implies that the judiciary only accepts sentencing guidelines only accepts sentencing guidelines because they emanate from independent body on which judicial members are in the majority. And I believe that is wrong.

Third, the letter from the Lord Chancellor to letter from the Lord Chancellor to Lord Justice Davies does not state Lord Justice Davies does not state or even suggest that ministers should play any role in the sentences imposed on offenders and sentences imposed on offenders and to suggest otherwise, as Lord Justice implies, is disingenuous I Justice implies, is disingenuous I would suggest. And fourthly, the sense that courts are not part of the state or they are part of the state is not only wrong but by any ordinary understanding of what the state consists of, but is explicitly contradicted by the courts and judiciary's own decision which is one of the three branches of the state presumably, this is part of the state.

In conclusion, it is right that the government has taken swift action to legislate but the Minister should also explain and look to the workings of his department, given in the 12 months to January 2025 senior officials from the Ministry of Justice attended meetings of the sentencing Council when these proposals were put forward, and yet they did not alert ministers to the fact that the proposed guidelines would be completely unacceptable to ministers both conservative and labour government ministers. It is right that we open up and more closely examine the workings and membership at the sentencing Council and it is subject to proper scrutiny, like subject to proper scrutiny, like We must make sure something like this does not happen again.

Guidelines for the future should be required to be confirmed via order in Parliament before coming into effect. Finally it is right that parliamentary sovereignty has been exerted in this case, whilst judicial independence remains protected. It has been a vital and timely intervention, and for that timely intervention, and for that reason I am pleased on this occasion to support the bill. to support the bill.
16:16
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Can I say how sorry I was to hear of the death of the noble and learned Lord who I just think of as Terry Atherton. His words were always wise, measured and compassionate. And we miss him. More positively, we look forward to the maiden speech of Baroness Nichols. A1 clause bill, provoking such strong feelings, particularly when there is much we can agree on. I have to say, our approach from the Liberal Democrat benches differs a good deal from that of Lord Jackson.

This must be one of those situations where one really doesn't want to start from here. Not only because I would like to rewind, but because we are expecting very soon of the review of sentencing by David Gauke. That should be the basis for a debate about sentencing, because a debate needs to be wider than this bill. We are very concerned about fast tracking this legislation, which we don't see as necessary. And obviously not desirable. That's a constitutional point.

I am a member of the constitutional committee, I think only my liberal friend Lord Beeson and I are members able to talk today. That committee takes the view that the fast tracking is not necessary, and says so in a report to the House which was agreed at about noon today and was published at about when we started this debate. Obviously the Minister is not going to be able to respond to it today, but I would urge that the MoJ does respond to the points made by the committee well before committee stage.

So that it is properly before the House and considered. Presentence reports are important, and ideally should be for everyone unless of course the court considers they are not necessary. But the probation service is very overstretched. The Lord Chancellor said she was clearing the way to "Free up capacity in the probation service", so we will be interested to know details of that. At what cost that might be the service's other work. That in itself deserves debate. The Justice and Home Affairs Committee of this House in a report, cutting crime better community sentences, spent a little time on presentence reports.

I was chairing the committee at the time. The Minister was very welcoming of the report when we debated, I recall he said that he read it three times, I suspect his workload is such that he doesn't manage that for many reports. But we appreciated that. We reported we referred to presentence reports and to that purpose, which we describe as providing an expert assessment of the nature and causes of the offenders behaviour, the risks they pose and to whom.

And so on. My pages have got stuck together. Our witnesses to the committee raised concerns about the quality of reports, in part because of the pressures on this service. Meaning that sentences, we took the view, did not have confidence in them as they should have. If a report for short it means the sentence are may not be able to consider an offender as an individual. We heard of PSRs based on what was happening in an offenders life eight or nine months, not taking into account the steps they have taken in that period.

We were told in evidence of the view of them being a tick box exercise, not being done in a meaningful person centred way. Sentences may include mental health treatment requirements and alcohol treatment requirements, both of which require the consent of the fender. And drug rehabilitation the fender. And drug rehabilitation requirements which require suitability conditions met by probation, making a recommendation to the court. For a sentence to be rehabilitative, one of the objectives of sentencing, it's obvious that the PSR process needs time and for the offender to be engaged.

The committee said they are an essential part of the process, they allow courts to tailor cirque -- sentences to individual circumstances, when specific requirements are available and suitable in their area. And the government agreed. I stress individual, because one has to surely consider the whole person, and how do you do that while excluding characteristics? As well as agreeing on the importance of PSRs, most of us I think would agree on the importance of equality. But that does not mean starting from a point of equality.

How can we ignore how people with some characteristics, those picked out in clause 1 in particular, are overrepresented in the criminal justice system? The Sentencing Council acknowledges this in correspondence, and so does the Lord Chancellor. But then it is argued that differential treatment on the basis of race or ethnicity affords the principle of fair treatment before the law. Is fairy really a synonym for equal? I take the view that one has to recognise where there is inequality in order to address it.

And addressing it doesn't always, and not in this context, treating everyone the same. As the Sentencing Council notes, there are inequalities in the sentencing regime, for example age which the bill does not spell out. It of course comes within the nonexhaustive list which is not on the face of the bill. The councils view is that "Providing a sentence are with as much information as possible about the vendor is one means by which disparity might be addressed. Whilst the council agreed with the government that any systemic issue relating to different ethnic outcomes would be a matter of ethnic outcomes would be a matter of policy, Lord Justice Davies said sentences must still do all they can to avoid an outcome based on ethnicity.

Therefore he said judges would be better equipped to do that if they had as much information as possible about the offender. The Constitution Committee currently undertaking work on the rule of law, and I am assured by those who are far more expert than me that positive measures are not necessarily incompatible with the necessarily incompatible with the rule of law. To me, personal characteristics without definition is confusing. To me, the division between characteristics and circumstances is grade.

What, for instance, is addiction? I think it's a characteristic. That would undermine treatment to which I have referred. The list is not exhaustive, that adds to the confusion. There is a risk of confusion of characteristics under this bill with detected characteristics, defined for a different piece of legislation. -- protected characteristics. The constitutional committee is also wary of the bill because of the incoherence in this area. And I really look forward to the MoJ's response to the points made in the report.

The committee also refers to retroactivity, which are friends constitutional. Can the Minister explain to the House what is to happen with presentence reports that are currently or at the point when the bill becomes law because I assume it will, what will happen to those that are in the pipeline including reports that are being prepared but not yet before the court. Are they to be reviewed or rewritten? I think it is really quite confusing to fast track bill to such an extent that commencement is immediate.

Normally there is time for those affected by legislation to prepare. I keep coming back in my mind to the question of how one can sentence without recognising the whole person. I also wonder how one can amend A1 clause bill without being accused of wrecking it. But I know my noble friend has been thinking about this very carefully, and I'm hopeful we will find a way which will make it a bill that is both coherent and accessible. I wish not only for procedural reasons, but because the focus should be on effective, trusted system.

I wish we were starting from here, and I hope this is not the finishing point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the remarks about the late
16:27
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd Portrait Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the remarks about the late Lord Etherton, he was a lawyer of the highest ability. He had great the highest ability. He had great skill and was a man of real quality. I worked with him for many years at the bar, and as a colleague on the bench. And all those qualities were shown in abundance in what he achieved in that period. But he also achieved a great deal in this House, and took on number of causes which some might not have found popular.

He was a great man and will be greatly, greatly missed. Could I turn very briefly to make three points about this bill. First, although we've been accorded a long time to speak I don't intend to take advantage of that to repeat what I have already said at length prior to the Easter recess. I then explained why I thought this bill was not necessary. I regret that the government feels it is necessary. But I very much hope then, and I still hope today, that this issue can be resolved without legislation.

But I won't repeat what I've already said to that end. Secondly, I agree with the Minister that this is a very narrow bill. That is no excuse for not getting it right, but it is a narrow bill. What I think is important to note is that it's not the occasion for the kind of wide- ranging issues to be raised, such as those raised by Lord Jackson. I do not therefore intend to answer them, they are raised on a subsequent occasion that will be the appropriate time.

But this is a narrow bill. I say that because I think it is important that the Sentencing Council and its predecessor bodies, the sentencing Council and the sentencing advisory panel, have worked well. Though I ought to declare that I was a member of the sentencing Council, I had a hand in setting up the sentencing Council and was its President of three years -- for years until 2017. But I do not believe that if we look at what it has done, we analyse the constitutional position, there is any basis for making any real change.

It has been a great success as it brings together the two arms of the state, the judiciary and the executive, under the supervision of the third arm, Parliament, in producing what is a very sensible way of dealing with balancing the role of Parliament in setting policy and the role of the judiciary in sentencing individuals. That is a complex issue, and I would like to leave it for an occasion where it properly arises. It does not arise today. Thirdly, and this point does arise today, that is the definition of personal characteristics.

This has already been touched on by Baroness Hamwee. I look at it this way, I think it could with advantage be clarified. And I think it would be helpful to understand why the definition is different to the definition of protected characteristics, set out in section 4 of the Equality Act. I note the Minister has in his opening speech already referred to the remarks made in the other place, where he said we are clear it is intended to cover a wide-ranging characteristics including sex, gender identity, physical disabilities and pregnancy There are a lot of other characteristics and I do think, before trying to amend it, it would be helpful to have a clear explanation, and I have given the Minister notice of this, on why the course chosen has been chosen.

But that is more important, I think, in the light of paragraph 14 of the Explanatory Notes as it uses the term personal circumstances of individuals in apparent contradiction to personal characteristics. I am not sure I understand the difference but it would be helpful if the Minister could try and explain what the difference is and, in any event, with that explanation, we can look forward to amending with considerable advantage this part of the bill without anyone being

**** Possible New Speaker ****

accused of breaking it. I declare my interest as Anglican

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I declare my interest as Anglican bishop for prisons and I am grateful to be speaking in this second reading debate. I greatly look
16:32
16:33
16:33
Lord Bishop of Gloucester Portrait The Lord Bishop of Gloucester (Bishops)
-
-
rather theatrical piece of legislation is necessary. In a world of sufficient resources, as has already been said, there will be already been said, there will be comprehensive reports for everyone to which careful attention was paid to which careful attention was paid in court, but if we have to prioritise PSR's, then it makes sense to prioritise those we know are especially vulnerable or whether it is evidence of disproportionate outcomes from the justice system. outcomes from the justice system. With the noble Lord the Minister comment on why he thinks there was such shock at this apparent two- tiered justice with regard to ethnicity but not the other cohorts ethnicity but not the other cohorts in the guidance such as young adults and pregnant women.

This government and pregnant women. This government believe the issues raised in the landmark report by the Foreign landmark report by the Foreign Secretary almost 8 years ago and our thing of the past? Is there no role for judges in mitigating issues for judges in mitigating issues raised in that report? The use of the sentencing counselling guidelines to feed a culture war is distressing. And the allegation of two tier sentencing based around race, religion, belief or cultural background is so damaging to public understanding.

This is already shaped so heavily by the shocking in extreme cases of violent crimes which are not the norm. Public understanding of why and how criminal sentences are handed down is severely lacking as evidence in the justice Select Committee in 2023 and a recent report detailing the citizen jury exercise. My own experience of talking to teenagers in schools is that more information about sentencing results in more considered responses and a greater sense of engagement with what we are trying to achieve which surely goes beyond mere punishment.

At the heart of the Christian gospel is a God who holds together both justice and mercy. We need a big long-term vision. Surely long-term vision must be about transforming lives and that includes victims as well as offenders recognising that many offenders are also victims, and if we are committed to the transformation of society, we need to take account of the impact of sentencing on families and the wider community. I am not saying that people who commit crimes should not receive punishment, but I am saying that sentencing should be much more than this and give the best possible outcomes for society.

In a judicial critique sentenced on inflation, former Lord Chief Justice including the noble and learned Lords Thomas highlight that people in prison are individuals and not statistics, and that the consequences of imprisonment on people's lives in prison and upon return to the community need to be considered in the whole, and they go on to say that evidence suggests that what happened during and after a sentence including rehabilitative interventions and resettlement support is more important than sentence length. If we are to treat people in the justice system as individuals, but surely includes taking into account people circumstances such as whether or not a woman is pregnant, and they characteristics such as Nero diversity and I echo what has been said about characteristics.

We cannot pretend that circumstances and characteristics do not matter. Why sentencing is threatened by this am dram politics and this bill risks taking us backwards and not forwards. I firmly believe we need less political control over sentencing and not more. I would urge the noble Lord to revisit the House of Commons justice select committees 2023 recommendations of the establishment of an independent advisory body on sentencing and I would propose an additional step, a commitment from the Treasury set out to Parliament where ministers proposed to expand or lengthen custodial sentencing against recommendations from the advisory board, thus resetting the relationship between politics and justice, including the public purse.

There is more I could say, much more, but I will end with engaging with the government's own rationale for this legislation. The justice secretary says inequality in society is a matter for policy and not for the judiciary. How then will the government create an equal society over their term of office so that these guidelines become redundant. these guidelines become redundant.
16:38
Baroness Nichols of Selby Portrait Baroness Nichols of Selby (Labour)
-
-
Thank you. It is a profound honour to rise before you today and make my Maiden speech in this esteemed chamber. I am deeply grateful to my sponsors, my friends and to Black Rod and all of the house staff who have been so welcoming since my introduction, particularly the doorkeeper's. And I am grateful also to my noble friends the leader Baroness Smith and the chief whip for their personal support since my peerage was announced.

To be asked to join your Lordships house is a privilege. I intend to serve with the same dedication that has guided me throughout my life. My journey to this moment has been shaped in my roots in North Yorkshire. A place that has defined who I am and the values I hold dear. It is a town built in industry, hard work and community, a place where people look out to one another, where solidarity isn't just a word, but a way of life.

My connection to Selby runs deep, my father was born there, and his life was not always kind to him, his mother died from tuba close is when he was six years old, and she was later rest in a pauper's grave in Selby Cemetery. A stark reminder of the struggles so many families face. My mother, one of 10 children from County Durham also new hardship. Her father lost his sight in a pit accident but my parents found strength, love and purpose. They met during the First World War.

My father stationed at Mirfield common. My mother evacuated nearby. They married, settled in Selby and raised a family in one of the largest estates in town. There values, community resilience and public service shaped my own path in life. It was there that I attended primary school following in my family's footsteps. I recently visited the year six strip who wanted to know about the House of Lords. My early years were filled with memories of the shipyard, shipyard on the banks of the river routes.

The sight of workers leaving on bicycles as the buzzer sounded, a scene that spoke of industry and pride, but perhaps my most memorable was the time my mother after a long walk into town returned home only for my father to ask where is Wendy? She had left me outside Woolworths in my pram. Thankfully, I was still there, blissfully unaware that I had been momentarily misplaced. My professional journey took me from catering college in Leeds and York. I became a school meals cook then started working the kitchen at one of the five super pets around Selby, and later moved into residential care for the elderly following in my parents footsteps once more.

It was Carrington House, formerly a workhouse that I truly found my calling. I saw first-hand the importance of dignity and care and the power of collective action to bring about change. It was there bring about change. It was there that I became active in unison. Over four decades, I have worked in North Yorkshire council where I fought for the rights of people serving as branch secretary in North Yorkshire, and in 2015/16, serving as president. Public service has always been in my blood, like my parents before me I became a Labour councillor.

The main route to office was far from convenient. In 1999, and this counted vote lead to an incorrect result being declared. It took a trip to the High Court and the oversight of the judge to correct the mistake. A moment I will never forget, he turned to me at the end and said I have always wanted to say these words, I hereby declare Wendy Ruth Nicholls Julie elected. That experience taught me that democracy is precious but it also requires vigilance. Beyond local government, I have the privilege of serving on the national executive committee of the Labour Party for nearly 14 years.

Including some of our most challenging times in our party. And our party's history. I am proud of that work because I believe politics should be about service, about building a fairer society and about ensuring that those who come after us inherit something better. As I take my place in your Lordships house, I do so with immense gratitude but also a sense of gratitude but also a sense of personal loss. My husband Keith, a proud trade unionist passed away in 2008. My parents have shaped so much of who I am died within the month each other in 2009.

I wish they could be had to see this moment to sharing this honour, but I know they are with me in spirit, just as I know that my greatest legacy lies not in titles, roles or offices but in my children. My daughter-in-law and my six wonderful grandchildren. My Lords, now turning to the debate, again, something of interest to me, I have represented many of our members in the Probation Service and have seen the amount of work that they have to do.

So while PSR's themselves are not an indication of sentence, we know there is evidence that there is an important element in sentencing. Receiving a PSR is more likely to discourage Judge from sending an offended prison and therefore will help reduce pressure on prison numbers. We know there are inequalities and disparities in society and our justice system which must be addressed, but these guidelines amount to treating people differently before the law according to their race or their religion. This breaks an ideal that our justice system is built upon.

Equality for all before the law. One of our most closely held ideals is equality. Before the law. And we can never have two-tiered justice because it completely undermines public confidence. Clearly the sentencing Council is straining to matters of policy in trying to matters of policy in trying to correct racial disparities. Pre- sentencing reports are very important to give the judges much information about the offender as possible, and can cut levels of reoffending when used properly. However, do you agree with me that they should be available for all offenders and access to a presentencing report should not be determined by an offender's determined by an offender's Presentencing reports are important, very often probation is stretched thin that officers don't have time to complete them.

What is the government going to do to ensure that when a PSR is required the probation service will have the capacity to do that? I note that the bill removes the whole problematic section of the guidelines, but the Lord Chancellor has been clear that pregnant women or victims of domestic abuse would still very much be expected to have a presentence report. So I look forward to working with you all in the months and years ahead. I bring with me the values of Selby, community, fairness and a belief that we all do better when we stand together.

I thank you for your time and you're welcome, and I look forward to playing my part in this great institution. The path from pitstop canteen to the benchers of this house has been a -- eventful, I've no doubt the next part will be as well.
16:46
Lord Bach Portrait Lord Bach (Labour)
-
-
It's an honour as well as a pleasure to be the first to congratulate my noble friend on her outstanding, and if I may say so, very moving maiden speech. She brings to this House deep experience and wisdom. She and her loving family have met challenges and setbacks that many in this House will not have experienced. She has faced adversity, and knows as well as anyone what it's like to be brought up, to work, to live in a world where people don't always enjoy the good things many of us in this House take for granted.

And have always taken for granted. In her speech she is clear that she understands deeply how people experience life. Her brilliant reputation from her union work I think shows that absolutely clearly, and there will be many in Selby and beyond who owe a huge amount to her hard work and commitment. She told us in her speech that her values are community, resilience and public service. Whether it's been working for her constituents when she was a counsellor, whether working for North Yorkshire Council for many years, whether her work for Unison and her fellow workers, or performing her important and valuable, and I mean invaluable and many on this side will no exact what she is doing, her invaluable work.

She has truly lived up to her values. All of us who have had the honour of listening to her speech today look forward to hearing her many times in this house. On the debate, I should declare some interests. Firstly as chair of the Leicester community advice and law centre. Secondly as joint chair of the all-party group on matters to justice, and thirdly as a member of this House's committee. A few points I want to make, but I want to stress how the Ministry of Justice under this government already has a record, in my view, to be proud of.

Not only the equality of its -- the quality of its Ministers, but in what, against crashing obstacles, they have already achieved. Given the ridiculous, unsatisfactory budget, that it has to work with. For me the small but important areas, particularly the setting up of the gawk and Leveson reviews. However, I have to say that I can't say I am equally delighted to see this bill before the House before the house this -- this afternoon.

Taking up precious time that could be spent legislating or at least debating other more vital justice issues. Frankly, I do find it hard to accept that we could not have resolved this impasse without the need for legislation. Let alone fast need for legislation. Let alone fast track legislation. After all, there is an overwhelming consensus as to the value and SS 30 of presentence reports. In addition, there is surely widespread agreement that the David Gauke review due out later this month, and the legislation that follows it, will be of much greater significance than this appeal as far as sentencing is concerned.

It will also of course be relevant to the issues we are discussing this afternoon at the Second Reading of this bill. The danger it seems to me is one of over legislating. By not allowing something that is brought as -- broad as personal characteristics to be taken into account in sentencing, we may by accident be excluding other factors that are highly relevant to any sentencing decision. This takes me to an amendment moved but not voted on in the other place.

It was in the name of the honourable and learn eight-member, Jeremy Wright, a distinguished Attorney General in the Tory government. He argued cogently it seems to me that if anything comes within the broad category of the term personal characteristics, if anything is forbidden for taking into consideration by the Sentencing Council when laying out the guidelines, this could well cover other characteristics such as physical or learning difficulties or severe injuries. Which is surely not the intention of this bill, and could make the difficult task of a sentence are even more difficult.

sentence are even more difficult. , to demographic cohort. Thus giving Ministers their point but not making the result confused or unintelligible. I am attracted by this approach, and hope that the government, following Second Reading, will consider carefully the proposition that Mr Wright made, if not using his actual words. I want to make two final points. Both the current chair of the Commons Justice Committee, Andy Slaughter MP and his predecessor Sir Bob Newell, have expressed regret that the bill and particularly the events leading up to it have been used by some to undermine judicial independence and to allow ad hominem attacks on judges under the guise of belated objections to these guidelines.

I agree entirely with the two chairs of the Commons Justice Committee. Alas, we are today in other countries we see around the world, including surprisingly the United States of America, how easy it is for governments and oppositions to attack the judges. As a matter of course we don't do that in this country. I hope. And I find it more than sad, indeed I'm angry that it's happened here. Independence of the judiciary is a fundamental part of the rule of law.

Attacking judges undermines that independence. And all of us should resist the temptation, however irresistible some politicians seem to find it. We should know better. What unites us, this is my final point, and what makes this legislation quite hard to understand is that all of us believe in the importance of presentence reports. As playing a vital part in sentencing. I practised criminal law for over 25 years, defending more than prosecuting. In those days it was inconceivable, this was some time ago of course, that a first- time offender Aurelia any offender who might face a first custodial sentence, without a properly prepared presentence report.

And by properly prepared I don't mean a 10 minute interview in a cell and then back into court. I mean a well- prepared and thorough report, with the probation officer being given the time and the space to do their job. We were all surely shocked to learn that the numbers of presentence reports has fallen by 42% between 2015 and 2023. From 160,000 to 90,000. I'm afraid one has to ask the question, how many of these reports are being prepared much too quickly? I hope we can all agree that presentence reports are an essential part of our system, and cannot be allowed to be compromised for financial reasons.

That's why the future of the probation service is so vital to this debate, and why in my view it would have been better if we could to have waited until the David Gauke review and the legislation that follows it.
16:57
Lord Verdirame Portrait Lord Verdirame (Non-affiliated)
-
-
I also would like to start by paying tribute briefly to the noble Lord Etherton. He was a mentor and for 25 years a close friend. I benefited from his counsel and friendship for many years and will miss him dearly, as I'm sure many in miss him dearly, as I'm sure many in this House will. My experience from the speech of Baroness Selby, I thought they were wise, moving and helpful. I'm sure she will make a great contribution to this place.

Many points I wanted to make about this bill have been made eloquently by Lord Thomas and now by Lord Bach. I should say criminal law is not within my field of academic expertise or practice at the bar, but the concerns I have about this bill are of a more general nature. I do understand and respect the political considerations behind it, but as with other brief and seemingly straightforward pieces of legislation this bill lacks the necessary clarity.

The main problem is, as we heard before, the concept of personal characteristics. The bill does not contain a definition of personal characteristics, but provides a nonexhaustive list of personal characteristics. It leaves open the question of what other characteristics might count as personal characteristics under the bill. If paragraph 14 of the Explanatory Notes, the effect of the two keys of section's of the bill is described as follows. Sentencing cannot be issued to state, it should be generally necessary to obtain a presentence report based on an off end up's membership of a particular demographic cohort rather than the particular circumstances of that individual.

The Explanatory Notes suggest the concept of personal characteristics is related to membership of demographic cohorts. The Sentencing Council's draft guidelines on their imposition of community and console deal sentences said a presentence report would be necessary if the offender belonged to one or more cohorts. The guidelines did not describe the cohorts as demographic, because they included characteristics that would not generally be understood as being demographic. It may be that the addition of the adjective demographic in the Explanatory Notes was designed to give more specificity, but when we then look at the categories of personal characteristics that are specified in clause 1.3 of the bill, unfortunately it only seems to add confusion.

To begin with, we do not see the most obvious characteristic defining a demographic cohort, namely age. Moreover, characteristics that are mentioned in the bill, like belief and cultural background, are not usually understood as characteristics defining membership of demographic cohorts. So I'm not sure they description in the notes as demographics tells us much about the meaning of personal characteristics. If we go back to the three personal characteristics that are expressly mentioned, two of them, race and religion or belief, are also protected characteristics under the Equalities Act.

But the third one, cultural background, is not. By the way, cultural background is itself a I was going to ask the Minister to provide some clarity between personal characteristic and protected characteristic under the equalities act. I think the Minister has addressed this issue in part in his introductory remarks, but I am not sure that what he has said makes the boundaries of the concept of personal characteristics any easier to identify. The bill is currently drafted and land itself to both a broad understanding of personal characteristics and a narrow one, based on the Ministers introductory remarks it seems the Government takes the view that the broad interpretation is preferred.

Can the Minister tell us whether this means that personal characteristics include all protected characteristics under the equalities act as well as other unspecified characteristics, and if so, how do we identify these other characteristics? The Explanatory Notes also draw a distinction on which others have commented between personal characteristics and personal circumstances, but can the Minister help us understand that dividing one between personal characteristics and personal circumstances? What about education, for example? Socio-economic status? Is that a characteristic or a circumstance? There are constructive avenues in which some of the issues can be addressed in the clarity of the bill.

It will be important for us to consider these thoroughly in committee to ensure that the sentencing house receives a far clearer instruction than the current draft of the bill provides.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It was a pleasure to listen to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It was a pleasure to listen to the hidden speech. I am so glad she took such trouble to explain the complicated background that brought complicated background that brought her to this House. It really adds greatly to our understanding and how greatly to our understanding and how she will approach the work she will undertake here. And the merits of undertake here. And the merits of this debate as well. As far as the this debate as well. As far as the this debate as well.

As far as the Noble Lord is concerned, I can say that I was the last to work with him on his final contribution to the work of the House. He sat as work of the House. He sat as chairman of the Holocaust Memorial Day committee with a difficult task Day committee with a difficult task be because of course many members of the House were very concerned about his provisions that he presided with his provisions that he presided with great care and great skill and great care and great skill and charm.

If he was unwell, and he may well have been, he did not show it.
17:05
Lord Hope of Craighead Portrait Lord Hope of Craighead (Crossbench)
-
-
I suppose one should say he conducted his duties as chairman with a great deal of courage and it with a great deal of courage and it was perhaps to look at his kindness, he did the unusual thing which I have never encountered before, as chairman he said -- sent each member of the committee a Christmas card of the committee a Christmas card and it is rather odd comment to make but he was very down to is in kind but he was very down to is in kind and thoughtful, and we will miss him very much.

My Lords, as others have said, the dispute that has given rise to this bill without legislation, I will address what we legislation, I will address what we have before us and speculate as to have before us and speculate as to what might have happened. As we have heard in particular from Lord Jackson of Peterborough, there are two issues in principle that arise two issues in principle that arise here. One is the independence of the judiciary into the principal and the second is the principle of the quality before the law.

As for the first, by the Sentencing Council, it includes the judiciary, and is there to provide guidance to the judiciary. I do not see this as a reason why the bill should not proceed. We must not compromise the independence of the judiciary in the exercise judicial function. It does not seek to deal with any decisions delivered in court by members of the judiciary. Its sole concern is with the issue of policy raised by the councils revised Council and guideline on the imposition of community and sentences.

It does not address the passing of the sentence itself. It is surely right then that the Government should ask Parliament to engage with issues of that kind if it finds itself in disagreement with what the council must propose. Our statutory is now are full of examples of situations from policy decisions about the nature and length of sentences of Parliament. It was not always so, when I began my practice rather earlier than the Noble Lord 50 years ago, Parliament did not really say anything about sentencing and what the Sentencing Council is, it is all a matter for the judiciary, but I think we have discovered that there is a need for balance and also a need for consistency.

And that is where the sentencing comes and the community standards function, but I do not think the fact that this bill is disagreeing with the policy decision of the council itself in anyway undermines or offends against the principle of the independence of the judiciary. It is the application of the principle that everyone should be equal before the law that lies behind the bill and I can understand the government's concern and the revised guideline does not seem to represent or respect the principle.

To say that that UPS is normally to be considered necessary the offender is from an ethnic minority, a cultural minority, or a faith minority group, inevitably raises the question what about the others? And the rest of those. From those particular backgrounds. As everyone knows, due to years of successive Governments, the progression service is short of money. It is under resourced and that has given rise to the tragic situation more barren described quite so well, the diminishing in the number of lords and possibly the quality of the reports themselves that they delivered, so the problem that we are addressing is of course everyone who is facing a custodial or community service should have the sentence report and that is something not the promotion of service can deliver for everybody.

I do not know it myself because I was part of those discussions as to why the discussion felt it necessary to issue the revised guideline. It seems likely that it felt that priority should be given to some in a situation where PSR can not be got for everyone, and I think we can understand that approach. I agree with Government that there is a risk that the revised guideline is both sensible in itself and understandable will disadvantage those who are not from the particular cohorts that the revised guideline has identified.

They face the prospect of a sentence without the presentence report and that is a result that in most cases no one would wish to see. But my principal concern which others have touched on is with the wording of this bill. This was, indeed, as Noble Lord has told us, a point raised at second reading of this bill in the House of Commons. By the former Attorney- General. And he later tabled the amendment, as has been extra, which addressed his point.

As he said at second reading, alt not to address the committee, inequality, by addressing it with another. He sees this and I respectfully agree with him that the phrase personal characteristics in the proposed subsection 4 to subsection 120 of the Justice act 2009 is too broad. It would seem to prevent the issue and highlights the cases where information about a particular person or characteristic, and I rephrase, individuals circumstances, because it might include individual circumstances to because it is crucial to the just disposal of the case.

Take circumstances such as impaired physical or mental health or another disability of that kind, and the fact that a person is a primary carer. These are examples of cases which have less present working, the prohibition that L6 to oppose. So Jeremy's point was that there is a danger of throwing away the bath with the bathwater and he , this was not used, the Explanatory Notes say, undergo, prevent differential treatment and does this by preventing the creation of a presumption of doubt whether presentence law should be obtained based on an offender's membership of a particular demographic cohort.

It is those particular words that he had in mind. The use of the phrase membership of a particular demographic cohort would avoid extending the exclusion too far while addressing more precisely the problem that the Government wishes to address. No, I rather gathered from what Noble Lord the Minister said while introducing this debate that it is the Governments intention that the prohibition should extend beyond the list. And that is troublesome. But if the Government wishes to stick to that which it has chosen in the proposed subsection, it really should consider rewording the definition in the proposed new subsection 12.

What it says is that for the purposes of section 120 of the act, the 2009 act, personal characteristics include, in particular, listed items. And would include, if the Minister would forgive me for saying this, really this word. It stretches apart into the unknown, over which the House has no control, or opportunity for scrutiny. And the prohibition is legislated for, the prohibition in particular should be precise, and will be achieved by replacing the words included in particular is a simple word of means and that would die the probation down to a particular individual circumstance listed in the subsection.

That would give the prohibition the precise meaning of meeting a very particular point of the revised outline. Now, I was going to say, the noble Baroness, indeed considerable report to draw our attention to and raising the concern about the fact that this bill is in first draft, but the fact bill is in first draft, but the fact that because I hope he will listen very carefully when we reach committee stage. Without amending the bill or destroying it, we can improve the work to make it clear exactly what the prohibition will do.

The point is that words matter. Words always matter. That is the function of this House to address this point, which is why I give the Minister this in advance and address this along with others. And I hope that in order to save time it would look at the work of these provisions itself and come with an amendment of its own which meets the suggestion that I am raising. I always look that I am raising. I always look forward to hearing what the Minister has said.

has said.
17:14
Baroness Mattinson Portrait Baroness Mattinson (Labour)
-
-
Want to start by congratulating my Noble Friend on her absolutely brilliant and very moving Maiden speech. It is great to be sitting here with her today. I also want to thank my Noble Friend the Minister for his excellent work on this very difficult issue. I believe he was absolutely right to respond as he has. I think this is a question of how we preserve the public's trust how we preserve the public's trust in our legal system.

As we all know, unfortunately, we generally trust institutions much less nowadays. Especially Government and politics. Although, that said, the British legal system enjoys relatively high rating with the public, 62% versus the OECD average of 54%. This is something we must work very hard to preserve, and should feel very proud of. There is, rightly, some concern that ethnic minorities are overrepresented in the prison system, as the review, for instance, found recently. With the majority of the public do not see the sorts of sentencing that are being discussed today, taking into account religious or ethnic background, as the solution.

The polling on this is 72% of the public opposes fuse and 52% strongly opposed. This extends across the whole population. Some differences between gender, age and so on, but basically that majority view, particular the strength of feeling, is held across all groups. Essentially, it seems the public believes that sentencing guidelines of this type risk being unfair and risk disregarding the complexity and causes that need to be taken into account. Now, it might be the public could and perhaps should know more about how sentences are set but it certainly seems to me simply saying they are wrong is not the answer.

I therefore agree that introducing sentencing guidelines are more likely to create resentment and was causing more problems than they solve, and also, risk breaking that vital hold of trust between the public and the legal system that matters so much and I support this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill very strongly. My Lords, I do not regard the
17:17
Lord Beith Portrait Lord Beith (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I do not regard the decision of the government... About the contents of the guidelines, in bringing legislation before this bringing legislation before this House in proper or unconstitutional judiciary but I think it's ill- advised by the fast tracking, because of the impression it gives about sentencing report and advise because the bill is so incoherent. I want to do each of those things. But it seems to me the government has done is encourage practice to be deplored amongst governments, finding a political problem getting up the legislative shotgun and firing the trigger immediately before any serious thought has been given as to how we can solve it effectively.

The bill is both unnecessary and undesirable. Undesirable because it gives the impression that presentence reports are in some way confirming a privilege, as though they are assisting, they are in fact assisting the judge. If they lead to someone being given a non-custodial sentence that might be because that is more likely to reduce reoffending on the part of that person, this is the judge to make important considerations in sentencing policies, and sentencing practice, which need to be made and increasingly need to be made, in a situation where our prisoners are desperately overcrowded and the record reoffending is very weak indeed.

I come to the contents of the bill itself. The bill says the guidelines about three sentencing boards may not include decisions framed by reference to different personal characteristics of an offender. In particular, race, religion or cultural background. In particular, it implies other personal characteristics, unspecified, could for within the prohibition, and the government expansion notes on the bill confirmed that in paragraph 15, that the listing in the bill is nonexhaustive. And it has been further confirmed by various statements ministers have made.

So how does the sentencing Council no if a category or cohort of offenders off than those named in the bill is covered by its probation? It's a very bad practice to impose, in this case, a law whose extent they can't know. There is no known method deciding what the status in relation to this law is of a characteristic which is not specified in it, which does not fall within some generally described category. And we can all be aware of numerous categories to which the supplies, pregnant women, already covered by others as a Thompson 2024, it is not clear that if the sentencing guideline, included a phrase during attention to recent case law on the subject of pregnant women being given custodial sentences, they would be acting illegally.

What is to happen in those circumstances? I can think of a number of others were there is already vision in statute, which the government appears to be saying is an effective, where it's not clear if the sentencing Council can lawfully draw attention to those features which for within the personal characteristics. The example I took was one that is not named in the bill but it applies both in the name characteristics and an unnamed characteristics. Victims of modern slavery, victims of domestic violence, offenders brought up in local authority care, victims of sexual abuse in childhood.

Residents of a notorious gang ridden housing estate characterised by intimidation. Children. All of these categories, nearly all of them, do not for within those specified on the bill. And our obvious features which ought to give a presentence report. What happens now if the sentencing Council draws attention to any of these, in any future version of the guidelines which emerges from this process? The bill is a mess. We have a crisis of reoffending, a crisis in our prisons, a sentencing David call, those are the sorts of things we need to be talking about, there is no crisis in the sentencing Council, there is a disagreement at the form of words that ought to be used to give guidance to courts on the subject of sentencing.

It is not -- it does not justify the fast tracking of bills and could lead to a situation described earlier when the government expressed reluctance to accept an amendment because of fast-track would be settled by the bill going back to the Commons which is nonsense really because that would be done in a day. I hope that his very wise guidance that we should not be deterred from amending the bill by the need for it to go back to the House, that that is not what is done.

That makes a nonsense of what we are here to do and the responsibilities we have. Our contusion committee in a report which was technically published but not that yet widely seen makes objections to the tracking process. We have all these crises and problems in relation to our present system and sentencing policy, here we have a bill which does nothing to address any of them and it's an ill-advised move in circumstances ill-advised move in circumstances which could be resolved in a much better way.
17:22
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
It was a pleasure to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lady Nicholls of Selby. And I physically like to comment that six is about service. And I think that something that almost everybody in this House understands extreme well, tries to commit to. It's also a pleasure to be in a debate where the lawyers, mostly agree. I mean, that is quite unusual because quite often one is debating this or that, or whatever, but today, it has been rather harmonious.

The sentencing Council is an independent body that saw a problem and tried to do something about it. It has done what it was designed to do stop and now the Labour government is running scared of these rather nasty right-wingers who are trying to interfere. I think it was Elon Musk, I mean perhaps amongst others, who first said, that Britain had a two-tiered justice system. And he was right, that is exactly what we have. Because some groups are worse treated than others.

We do not have equality under the law. We have known about women being less fairly treated for decades. With women being in prison for things -- would not be. Sentencing Council came up with the modest of changes to address that issue, and has been slammed for it the updated sentencing guidelines don't do anything dramatic. Just ensure the courts have the most brands of information about offenders and offences. The guidelines put emphasis on the presentence reports, and sentencing decisions and offer more clarity on the scope of requirements for community orders and suspended sentences.

When the government says it wants equality under the law, everybody wants that. We all understand that that is something absolutely desirable. But the difference is that I accept the evidence, that we currently have a two-tiered system of justice, where you can end up receiving worse treatment because you are a woman because of the colour of your skin. And if the government is going to reject the guidance from the sentencing Council, then what ideas are they putting forward? And I'm only speaking briefly because a lot has been said already.

A lot I agree with most and some I don't, obviously. But I'm just... Puzzled by the fact that the government does by the fact that the government does not have qualms or perhaps it does, the noble Lord Lord Timpson might want to tell us, if the government has qualms about the fact that the Greens, the Lib Dems, crossbenches, the church, or actually speaking against this bill, and what you have is, you have the Conservative supporting you, you have policy exchange supporting you, what is that about? Since when did the Labour government want to be supported by this lot? I really, I do not understand where you are coming from.

So please can remember that we are in a society now that is deeply misogynistic, more than I think any time in my life, back in the 70s, 1970s feminist, I thought we had won that particular battle, I really thought this was the future for women, that we would be equal in society and we clearly are not. And the government ought to address things like that. And I look forward to seeing some of the amendments to gain from more learning people and I will almost certainly support them.

My Lords, heartfelt congratulations to Baroness Nichols for her wonderful maiden speech. I know you back from North Yorkshire. She was always a wonderful woman, a wonderful lady, and if you went in some of her meetings, she was really like a mother heard. She was always looking out for somebody who is on the margin, excluded, and tries to draw them in, so what you have heard is what I experienced in reality when you were a politician. And you're still loved and Selby.

P. Remember you and I remember the grand opening of the organ. She was there helping with teas and coffees and being involved. It is from the heart, but always your smile, and you're welcome, you knew had come home. Soaring forward to hearing what you have to say Andrew maiden speech was one of those things that reminded me of North Yorkshire. -- And York maiden speech. I welcome this bill, actually because of the reasons clearly set out in the Explanatory Notes and the House of Lords library briefing by Claire Broder.

They give the reasons why this is happening, it is happening because the meeting with the sentencing Council did not want to change things within the guidance. And so the government thought, was right, and the only you could change it was by gestation. The body is independent. I agree that this bill will ensure quality for all in our court. Baroness Hamwee was saying the same. Everybody's going to be clearly included within it. This law in the end will prevent the sentencing Council from publishing guidelines that stipulate the use of a presentence report, best on the offenders characteristics, they have created this and I think the government should have been much wiser to pick out those characteristics, which really prohibited to be used as a basis for exclusion, from the humanity act.

And Lord Thomas also said the same thing, that race, religion and belief, our -- are protected characteristics, why don't you put those in or refer to section 9 of the Human Rights Act? Because that will be much clearer. And of course the bit about race, belief, and there is a thing I don't understand, what is cultural background? What does it mean? Does that mean that both of us grow in the same estate and if you didn't, you have no part?
17:30
Lord Sentamu Portrait Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)
-
-
What does it mean? I think that is the bit in the bill I think is not worth retaining. You have got to worth retaining. You have got to find something better than that. I find something better than that. I want to turn to that four letter want to turn to that four letter words, race. As chair of general committee for minority ethnic applicant concerns which came out of applicant concerns which came out of faith in the city, we carried out a survey of the way of combating racism in the dioceses of the Church of England in 1991 and recorded of England in 1991 and recorded seeds of hope.

-- And we called it the seeds of hope. We said about the nature of UNC. Men and women, boys and girls of every he and a group and girls of every he and a group belong to that one race. The human race. All men in the image of God race. All men in the image of God and all are of unique worth in his and all are of unique worth in his sight. My Lords, the word race has had a troubled history.

Racism is born out of ignorance and sadly ignorance is not in short supply. ignorance is not in short supply. Apartheid in South Africa, for example, believe that colour defined the race of a person and laws were passed for marriage to where you lived and where you were buried because you belonged to a very different race from those who were governing at the time. Well, next door in Zimbabwe, they led the turning of a food basket for the whole region into a basketcase.

White farmers and their workers belonged to the one human race and deserve to be treated thus far. Humanity belongs to the one human race, even in Zimbabwe. We have three grandchildren. Two from a white father, and one from a black father. The third is from a white mother and a black father. All three, by the way, are not from mixed parentage, or different races. The Oblast with what we call double ethnic. A white father and a black mother.

Double ethnic. It is not that they are either coloured or this or other stuff. I wish the Government had used a better word, which, for me, is ethnicity. And not race. Because the word race has had a very unfortunate history. But most people, when they talk about race, they talk about me because I am on to be black but I am Ugandan. When you talk about a white person, there would race does not appear, because, I want to say, we all belong to an ethnic group.

But, also, we equally belong to the one human race. And I am hoping that the way of talking about this so that we bury that word called racism because it does not often describe what you wanted to describe during the inquiry of Steven Lawrence we went around, we were in Birmingham. And there were people that had views that every white British man is a racist simply because they happen to be white and happened to be the police.

And it was a very difficult gathering. And, of course, you then get some black people were you may suggest that their views are racist, and they would like to deny that. My, a black person? Of course they can be racist. But that is from South Africa, or rather Zimbabwe, so what do you say to the noble and learned Lord? You should bring in an amendment that is easier to understand and describe the very thing you are minded to do and the noble and learned Lord told us he thinks it is unnecessary, yes, if , of course there would be no need for it.

Because they would not be in the guidance, but where that still is the case, I would like to support this to make sure that those particular sections which are in the guidance and prevented by law, but methanol please the clearer what it is doing and drop that question of culture because I do not know what it means that I not sure what you know what it means, but it is in the bill.
17:35
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords, what a lovely Maiden speech in the noble Baroness. She did sell-by and her family proud. And, what is better, she talked a lot of grounded sense on this issue, so welcome. I actually also welcomed this bill. And it really is important, what we are discussing here, that presentencing reports will now not offer differential treatment based on race, religion, or ethnic background, but, as we have heard, it was a close thing. As the Noble Lord Jackson of Peterborough outlined, it is important that we note that this is a serious democratic concern.

That and unelected quango set up by unelected politicians set out against the wishes of those same elected politicians and it is taking urgent infrastructure primary legislation to stop it, but I note that the Noble Lord Timpson's letter that this broader debate is off- limits today, but I emphasise that this tension cannot be sidestepped moving forward, and needs to be taken head-on. Noble Lord beef and others say that this bill is unnecessary, which is not the problem for us, that it became necessary because the independent Sentencing Council flouted democracy, and that should matter.

The same Ministers letter, by the way, that I referred to earlier, reassures us that this bill will not affect the presentencing reports in general. That is fine, although it has to be said, we do need some attention given to PSRs. Her majesties Inspectorate of probation's letter standing report said that 70% of PSRs, that PSRs are inspected between February 24 and February 2025, deemed insufficient. And I also think that there needs to be more clarity open to the public about the role of presentencing pots in general, now that we are talking about it in relation to the bill.

While there may be a broad acceptance in making sentencing decisions for individual circumstances if they can be looked at and taken into account, for the public, I think that reassurance may be needed that the main focusing of sentencing decisions should be appropriate punishment for particular criminal actions and individual perpetrators culpability. More broadly, and going back to the specifics of this bill, I commend the Lord Chancellor for their clarity about why the original Sentencing Council provide guidelines offending treatment for the fair treatment of the law and how the seriously did risk confidence in the justice system in general.

There is, indeed, and ever deepening trust deficit. And I am not entirely sure that this doublebill is sufficient in fixing it. Because the reason is that differentiated treatment in Criminal Justice Act goes far beyond this sentencing issue. Miss Mahmoud herself seemed to acknowledge that when she stated as someone who is from an ethnic minority background herself, I do not stand for any differentiated treatment for the law for anyone of any kind. To borrow a phrase from the Prime Minister, she gets it.

As Miss Mahmoud, interestingly, also used a key phrase in opposing this differentiated approach, when she confronted a two-tiered sentencing approach. That is a choice turn of phrase, in my opinion. Previously, the popular critique of common justice two-tiered is actually really resonating, particularly in relation to the sentencing her last summers rights and was sneeringly dismissed as a far right conspiratorial myth by many Ministers and politicians. It was written off as some culture was troop and we have heard similar slurs here today.

And even as recently as April, the home affairs inquiry committee inquiry into last year's code civil disorder described Clinton's policing as unsubstantiated and disgraceful, but can I ask the Minister if he acknowledges why there is a widespread perception reflecting in bowling and granted in real life experience and evidence that often even before sentencing occurs, some crimes could be handled differently depending on the race, religion, or community membership of the perpetrator. I have just written forward for a forthcoming report entitled the many tears of British justice.

When identity politics trumps impartial policing. I will send a copy to the Minister when it is published next month. It is a crucial read. It uses, for example, and explores in detail, the loss of confidence in the impartiality of police operations. Which, increasingly, seem to be influenced by the particular community, or by broader political concerns, rather than Criminal Justice Act ones. The plight of the now suspended and now sacked Chair of the Committee police regulatory week prior facing this tension, Mr Pryor was removed from his job after the team that he interviewed in which he discussed how his member of ex-socialist investigations meant that police officers hesitate before engaging the same, sorry, have lost my place, with minority ethnic Londoners stop referring to some independent office for police conduct investigations and they reported that some police officers have stopped applying the law fairly to people of all backgrounds.

Some noble Lords have raised concerns about speeches made today, that have raised broad political concerns, and that we should have stuck to the narrow tramlines of this bill, get back in your lane. Let alone the fact that this is a second reading debate, so we are led allowed to stretch broadly, can I also raise my concerns, which rather mirror those, which is I believe that criminal justice is being used in a rather proactive political way, and that there should, potentially, stick to their lane.

Indeed, one thing that this whole Sentencing Council controversy has revealed, is that tenancy to try to use Criminal Justice Act to compensate for Justice Act to compensate for perceived racial unfairness, and alleged social injustices. The Sentencing Council in its original statement admitted this by saying the quiet bit out loud, "The reasons for including group PSA groups for PSRs vary, but include evidence of disparities in sentencing outcomes. Translation, the aim was to go easier on certain groups to address alleged inequality.

Lord Chancellor and the Minister's letter acknowledged the sentencing commission's good intentions in addressing disparities of sentencing outcomes, but I am natural but that we should flatten those intentions, because even if the Minister rightly emphasises that the discussions should be done by policymakers, decisions accountable to the public, I have a nagging concern and may be the Minister can reassure me as I finish off, the Government seems to be accepting at face value the Supreme Court's thesis that racial disparities, or inequalities, must mean inequality of treatment and races and discrimination.

I fear such conclusions are exactly what leads to an inappropriate, proactive, antiracist prerogative and clouds the ability to look dispassionately and objectively at the issue. At the very least, alternative explanations need to be considered. For example, ethnic minorities tend to plead not guilty at a higher rate, leading to less sentencing. And one suggestion to expend it as there's more distrust in advice given by state provided lawyers, distrust that might be legitimately having its roots in the legacy of historic racism, but have Criminal Justice Act is our politicians, pushing the narrative politicians, pushing the narrative that state is institutionally racist, one that simply deepen and embed such distrust? I think we need, actually, not to have narrow bills for broader discussions, but, in this instance, hope that the narrow bill will clear the way for those broad discussions that should be about use of the law and the judiciary for political purposes, which I think is worrying.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

This rather sombre debate has been enhanced by the delightful been enhanced by the delightful Maiden speech of the noble Baroness Nicholls of sell-by. I am so glad I Nicholls of sell-by. I am so glad I was here to hear it. May I endorse the comments made? In respect of the death of my learned friend and death of my learned friend and erstwhile colleague, Lord Etherton. His loss is a personal blow, and a His loss is a personal blow, and a bloated this House.

I believe that bloated this House. I believe that it is particularly desired that
17:45
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers Portrait Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (Crossbench)
-
-
judges should have the assistance when sentencing ethnic minority offenders. The Lammy Review identified that ethnic minority, ridiculously black offenders, were sentenced to prison more often and for longer than white offenders. The review considered presentence reports, and concluded that role that they played was, and I quote, vital, considering the difference in background, both in social class, and ethnicity, between the magistrates and judges, and many of those offenders who come before them. The problem is that, ideally, provision of presentence reports should be the norm in the case of Singling out the ethnic minority Singling out the ethnic minority cohort in the guideline.

But currently struggling Probation Service appears to lack the resources to produce adequate presentence reports even in the diminishing number of cases where they are requested. I do not believe that the guideline introduces two- tiered justice. Nor do I believe that its introduction would severely damage confidence in our criminal justice system. I do not believe that we need this bill. But we are where we are. Solar Taskforce action to accept this bill, imposing drafting improvements if we may, and there is scope for those, and move on to addressing the much greater problems that currently beset the sentencing regime.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I add my support to the words of the noble and learned Lords Lord Thomas, Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Thomas, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, eloquent tribute to the Matravers, eloquent tribute to the noble and learned Lord Lord Etherton, who will indeed be greatly Etherton, who will indeed be greatly missed by not only those in this House who have had the privilege of House who have had the privilege of hearing him over recent years, but hearing him over recent years, but also, by the wider legal public and the public in general.

My Lords, I the public in general. My Lords, I also join with great pleasure with others in praise of the noble Lady others in praise of the noble Lady Baroness Nichols excellent maiden speech. Particularly if Mo So so the speech. Particularly if Mo So so the very personal accounts that she included within it -- if I may say
17:47
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
included within it -- if I may say so. It was a pleasure to hear the noble Lord whose Yorkshire perspective on the noble Lady 's contribution to public life. Turning to the bill, nothing I have heard today has persuaded me that this bill is either necessary or sensible. On these benches, we regard it as an overreaction to a different. Little more than a misunderstanding at the outset between the Lord Chancellor and of the Sentencing Council. What is more a misunderstanding that could and should have been sorted out informally, by discussion and compromise, without resort to emergency legislation, as the noble Lord Lord Paul said.

We believe this bill proceeds from a full-strength, a fallacy indeed, the Sentencing Council has produced guidelines that depart from the principle that everyone is equal before the law. In this house, we all believe in equality before the law. The argument for the bill that is advanced is that if PSRs are obtained, more readily for particular cohorts of offenders, then those offenders are less likely to go to prison, which the argument goes amounts to 2 to justice.

But as the noble friend Lord Beith pointed out, this bill is about the provision of presentence reports, not about sentencing offenders differentially. They're written to assist judges in making the right sentencing decisions. And I suggest that the tutor justice argument misrepresents what equality before the law means. What it means is that courts treating everyone alike, with neither fear nor favour, that's the significance of the saying that justice is blind. The iconic statue atop the Old Bailey.

It's about applying the law evenhandedly. It does not mean ignoring the evidence. Still less skewing the evidence by depriving the court of the ability to do justice on the basis of all the available evidence and information, and so weakening the ability of the court to dispense justice. The underlying reality which this bill ignores is the glaring inequality of outcomes in our criminal justice system. Whereby offenders from ethnic minorities have historically been far more harshly treated by sentencing courts.

Under far more likely to prison than their white counterparts, and as Lord Phillips pointed out, for longer. The evidence of that one has only to read the well researched, well argued 2017 final report, the Lammy Review, mentioned by the noble Lady Baroness Mattinson and by the name Vladlen and Lord Lord Phillips. Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb was among many who reinforced this important point, and the bill does nothing to address that reality. Far from it. It ignores three very real truths.

The first is the PSRs are the only reliable way that judges can obtain a full and true account of the individual circumstances of offenders if they are called upon to sentence. These reports are a vital source for judges, of independently collated information about those individual circumstances which they need to take into account when deciding between imprisonment and community sentences. They cannot get such information from speech of mitigation however well constructed because those speeches are made and the defendants instructions and cannot be verified.

The second truth is, as the noble Lord the Minister reminded us, that while PSRs ought to be before judges in every case before sentencing, certainly in every case where a prison sentence is possible but not inevitable. Yet their availability in practice has substantially declined in recent years. The reason for that is uncontroversial. Resources for the Probation Services have impressively reduced and mismanaged by government over the years. The noble Lord the Minister reminded us that the number of PSRs has reduced by 44% over 10 years.

And the third truth is this. That the quality of those reports that have been produced has declined as time allowed to promotional offices to produce individual reports has been produced. Allegedly, to save money. My noble friend bonus Hamwee and the noble Lord bar spoke in detail of the present weaknesses of money reports. And we thoroughly welcomed the government was not, to increasing sources for the Probation Service generally and for the provision of more detailed and thorough PSRs in individual cases in particular.

So I do agree with the noble Lady Baroness Nichols that we should be making thorough presentence reports available for all offenders, with the options of custody or community sentences, to enable the court to have the fullest material about individual circumstances of offenders when sentencing. Where I part company with the government in Baroness Nichols is that it is neither logical nor defensible to say, well, if we can't afford reports for all those at risk of prison, we will forbid the judges to prioritise the most vulnerable groups in the interests of an artificial equality.

Yet that is what this bill proposes. I agree with the Right Reverend product of the Bishop of Gloucester that it is plain wrong to forbid prioritising presentence reports in the phase of a lack of resources. That is not to uphold equality before the law. In the face of a misguided guideline. It is to prevent the Sentencing Council from performing the function in the most helpful way possible in addressing the inequality of outcomes that bedevils the system as it operates at present.

It's all very well for the noble Lord the Minister to say that the causes of unequal outcomes are presently unknown. Because there is a mass of evidence to the contrary. Even the proposition that doing without PSRs saves money is deeply and flawed. saves money is deeply and flawed. The following the logic, more PSRs lead to fewer because I don't sentences, then PSRs do not increase public costs. They save the public money. No one denies that prison is far more expensive than community sentences stop that's true and all the evidence, even leaving out of account the knock-on effects of imprisonment or prisoners families, housing, employment and dependence on the state, and the effects of all that on the public finances.

Then there is the clear evidence that community sentences are far more effective than prison at reducing reoffending. And reoffending costs the public purse and the average estimate about £18 billion a year. If PSRs are more widely available, and that may contribute to a reduction in reoffending and so the saving of resources. My Lords, the bill raises two constitutional issues, constitutional committee has prepared a report which has been published today technically but nobody has had time to read or consider it.

The rushes relevant to the first constitutionalist, an issue on which the committee criticised the bill and that is the use of FastTrack monetary legislation, once an emergency has passed. As we know the Sentencing Council paused implementation of the guidelines specifically to give us time to take a view to give this Parliament time to take a view, this bill has no place in being treated as emergency legislation. It has been rushed at every stage. The rules about time-lapse between stages are designed to allow for reflection and consultation between stages not just in Parliament but outside as well and this bill has suffered from a lack of both.

The second constitutional issue is this. One of course I accept the point that Parliament has the power to legislate, the right to legislate, to alter the powers or functions of the Sentencing Council, nevertheless the Sentencing Council is itself a creature of statute. And that power ought to be exercised with great caution. It was established by the Coroners and Justice Act and independent body to give advice to judges. Its purpose being to assist judges in the conduct of the sentencing decisions and to help them to achieve the appropriate level of consistency in sentencing approaches and outcomes.

That is a judicial function. It is not sensible for the executive to interfere. Parliament sets out maximum sentences, and sets out a maximum sentences, and sets out a set of rules. But it is dangerous for the executive to interfere. Through introducing an act of Parliament, with the way the sentencing are then produced. And to set out what they should and should not contain. That runs the risk of an unwarranted and helpful to Ference -- unwarranted and unhelpful interference.

The Conservative justice spokesperson proposed an amendment proposing what was in effect a veto over at Sentencing Code produced by the Sentencing Council. In this House noble Lord Lord Jackson proposed much the same thing. That is inappropriate. In addition, the bill is incoherent in its drafting. What the constitutional committee politely calls legislative uncertainty. I don't wish to go into detail because the points made throughout the House by my noble friend Baroness Hamwee, by the noble and learned Lord Lord Thomas of come here, the Right Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, and others, all on personal characteristics, they are surely right.

On pregnancy, being transgender, sexual orientation, all personal characteristics, there are also circumstances that a Sentencing Code might want to take into account as well as ethnicity physically where those characteristics give rise to persecution, abuse, and psychological and model health issues -- particularly. Those are the kind of factors that might be considered and explained in PSRs. Why should Sentencing Code not indicate that some of these characteristics are important and make a PSR more valuable to judges? For my part I find any detection between personal characteristics and personal circumstances ill-defined and unhelpful.

And I agree with the noble and learned Lord Lord Hope and my noble friend Lord Beith that the wording of the prohibition is profoundly unhelpful. I shall not take up the invitation that my noble friend Baroness Hamwee gave to foreshadow at second reading amendment that might lead to be considered. We have had a number of suggestions for committee stage. I would also consider the insertion of the words "without good cause" into the prohibition to allow for some assessment of what may or may not be sensible.

But that is for the next stage of these proceedings so I stage of these proceedings so I
18:01
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Portrait Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative)
-
-
I hope the House will permit me to begin with a word from the noble and learned Lord that in. He was, as the noble and learned Lord Thomas remarked, a very great man. Outside remarked, a very great man. Outside this House, he was a brilliant chancery lawyer and a wise judge, and in this House he was a wonderful person to have on your side, and I remember as a minister intimidating, if always courteous, and opponent to have on the other side of the debate.

I will miss him and may his memory be blessed. This bill has been introduced to remedy a problem. And it does, more or less, remedy that problem, but the bill could, and we say should be doing more. Because the immediate problem which led to this bill has shone a light on a deeper issue, and one of constitutional significance within the Criminal Justice Act system, and on that point I agree with the Noble Lady Baroness, although we differ on the substance of the bill and what has led to it.

Not surprisingly the number of former senior judges from whom we heard this afternoon, we have had many excellent speeches and more surprisingly given the number of lords who have spoken we have kept more or less to time, but may I immediately single out a nonlawyer, indeed the moving maiden speech of the Noble Lady Baroness Nichols of sell-by, which was a real privilege to listen to. I knew that you could get almost anything at Woolworths. I did not appreciate that you could get future Baronesses as well.

I look forward to hearing more from the Noble Lady in her work in this House in the coming months and years. As we know, the Sentencing Council, an unelected body, which has eight members accounted by the Lord, now Lady Justice, introduced sentencing, proposed sentencing guidance, that could have led to a divisive Criminal Justice Act, or the risk of dividing people from race, religion, and identity. That point, it appears, at least, is not now in dispute at least between the shadow Lord Chancellor and then the Lord Chancellor herself have proposed the guidelines.

Originally due to come into effect from 1 April this year, the proposed guidelines said that, "It would normally be considered necessary for judges and magistrates to increase the sentence report for certain cohorts of individuals because of those cohorts included if the defendant belonged to, and I quote, an ethnic minority, a cultural minority, or a face minority community. I should say at the outset that I too am not entirely sure what is meant in these terms by a cultural minority. If it is not already an ethnic minority or face minority.

Talking about morris dancers or devotees of the Ring cycle? As the bill uses the same And in the cultural minority in this context. All of the effect of the guidelines if you were in one of these groups then the presentence report would normally be considered necessary but what is the effect of that? It means your chances of receiving a non-custodial sentence have increased. Presentence reports typically written by a probation officer are key to it magistrates deciding whether to sentence them to prison or to a non-custodial community order, particularly in those cases.

As a result, deciding which defendants are included in the cohorts worry presentence report will normally be required, and which are not, can be key in deciding who goes to prison and who does not. Now, as a matter of statute, courts have to follow these guidelines from a Sentencing Council. They are not optional. Prior to 2009, calls in England and Wales were directed within sentencing quotes must have a regard to guidelines which have any regard to the offender's case, that was section 17221 of the Criminal Justice Act, 2003.

During the passage of the Justice act, 2009, the provisions concerning sentences concerned considerable debate, and the previously acquired court to have regard to any guidelines was placed in clause 125 with costs being required to follow any sentencing which are relevant, unless contrary to the interests of justice, and that was replicated in section 59 of the sentencing act, 2000. I should therefore now deal with some of the points made on behalf of of and actually by, as well, the sentencing Council.

And for the avoidance of any doubt, whilst this is not to be necessary to say, let me say that I firmly believe in the independence of the judiciary. Indeed, I believe that we have the finest judiciary in the world. That does not mean that we cannot respectfully respond to points that have been made, publicly, on behalf of the Sentencing Council to the Lord Chancellor. And as they wrote to the Lord Chancellor this year, any, he made the point that it is still possible for a judge or magistrate to order a pre-sentence if there sentencing and individual not captured within one of these demographic groups and that is, of course, absolutely true but with respect to Lord Justice, it rather misses the point.

It is the almost automatic nature of the presentence report for certain groups, and the discretionary nature for other groups, which is the issue at heart. Similarly, in the data from 27 March, with the noble and learned it Lord Justice turned to the crucial point was that the presentence report would provide information to the judge or magistrate but it would not determine the sentence. A point made a few moments ago by the noble Lords of Henley. Again, that is true, but again with respect to the Noble Lord justice, while a presentence report does not mean that you will get a non-custodial sentence, it is certainly harder to get a non-custodial sentence without it.

And to put it bluntly, if the Noble Lord the Minister and I were each charged with the same offence in the same court with the same previous criminal record, these guidelines would have meant that I would almost certainly get a pre- sentence record, and he might or might not. And that would mean that my chances of a non-custodial sentence were better than his. Simply because I am a member of the minority faith community. And that, I suggest, is entirely unjustifiable. And it is no answer to that point, I suggest, to say that there are disparities in sentencing on Criminal Justice Act systems for certain groups.

There are those disparities, and we need to understand why they exist and work to eradicate them. And these guidelines are not and never were the answer to that problem for three the answer to that problem for three reasons and should say I am also indebted to policy changes paid by David Spencer and also to the person who contributed to research for that paper. First, the guidelines did not target only those groups where we see disparities. Black defendants, for example, do appear to receive longer sentences for the same offence than white defendants, but to Jewish defendants receive them to take advantage of another minority community? I see no evidence of that, but it does not appear that the Sentencing Council did either.

These guidelines were therefore more properly targeted at what they said was the problem. Second, as the Minister reminded us, the reasons why black defendants receive longer sentences and need to use the words of Lord Justice Davies from his own letter, remain unclear. What is clear is that those reasons are complex, as the Noble Lady baroness reminded us. And certainly do not necessarily involve bias on the part of sentences. And I am many noble Lords like me are devotees and hosted by the Noble Lord McDonald of public prosecutions and who, alas, is not in his place.

But as I see that the noble and learned Lord is also not in his place, I feel sufficiently charitable to say that his legal podcast, law and disorder, is also very good, and sufficiently brave to add that it is almost as good as Lord McDonald's. What Lord McDonald did do in his podcast recently, and the Noble Lady baroness touched on this, was to point out that black defendants pleaded not guilty in a higher proportion than do white defendants, and of course the sentences are higher if you are found guilty after a not guilty plea because you use the guilty plea discount.

Black defendants, he pointed out, also elect for Crown Court trial, proportionally more than do white defendants and sentences are generally higher after conviction in generally higher after conviction in the Crown Court than in the Magistrate's Court and I am not suggesting that these two points explained the entirety of the disparity, in fact I am sure that they do not and are therefore likely to have a number of reasons for the disparity, which, I repeat, we should work to eradicate. And on that point I do agree this is a sentence I rarely of that the Noble Lady Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, but to get back in my normal way which I disagree with the Noble Lady is this.

You do not work to eradicate disparities by introducing additional accreditation into the system to somehow correct for those disparities because there is one fundamental principle at the heart fundamental principle at the heart of the justice system and it is this, equality before the law. Now, I am fond of the Minister, as he knows, so I do not propose he has had to hard of a time with the Lord Chancellor, but the plain fact of the matter is that despite having a representative on the council when the guidelines were discussed, the Lord Chancellor only acted once alerted to the problem by shadow Lord Chancellor.

Now, the Lord Chancellor said that she was not personally aware of the guidelines until the statements brought them to her attention, and of course I entirely accept that. But given the seniority of some of the officials attending those meetings, the guidelines should have had warning bells ringing and lights flashing in France that they did not realise that these guidelines would not be acceptable to Ministers and would indicate that there might be something of groupthink, but to be fair to the Lord Chancellor, when she was alerted to it, she did get to grips with the issue, including by way as I am sure the noble Lords have seen a polite but sometimes feisty correspondence with Lord Justice Davies and this bill is the result.

The real issue, however, is the relationship between the Sentencing Council and the Government and between the Sentencing Council, and this Parliament. And I do want to take and it is often misunderstood, while I listen carefully to the noble and learned Lord Thomas as I always do, this is second reading and not committee, and therefore I do want to take a moment to touch on this, because this is an important point and to say, as many do, sentencing is a matter for judges is too simplistic, and if meant literally it is also wrong.

Individual sentencing, i.e. The sentence handed out in a particular case is rightly a matter for, and only four, trial judges and magistrates. The Government must not be involved in that. But the setting of overarching sentencing policy is very clearly a matter for Government and Parliament. And so here I must again disagree and with respect to Lord Justice Davies The Chair of the Sentencing Council, in his 10th of March letter to the Lord Chancellor he said, and I quote, there is a general acceptance of the guidelines by the judiciary, because they emanate from an independent body in which judicial members are in the majority.

The council deserves a critical constitutional position of the dependent judiciary in relation to sentencing. In criminal proceedings where the offender is subject to prosecution by the state, the state should not determine the sentence imposed on an individual offender. If sentencing guidelines of whatever kind are to be detected in anyway by Ministers of the Crown, this principle would be breached. I respectfully disagree with Lord Justice Davies for three reasons. First, as I have said, we need to distinguish between the sentence imposed on an individual offender, and the wholesale policy environment in which sentencing frameworks are set.

The format is for the judiciary. And the judiciary alone. The latter is not. Parliament. Devil Ministers and Gala -- therefore monster then Parliament must have the framework. The bill is entirely properly constitutionally. In fact, for many decades we did not have the Sentencing Council at all, it is a creature of fairly recent statute. And Parliament obviously has an important role in sentencing policy, the upper limits for the sentencing of offenders offset by Parliament statute, for example in the theft act, 1968.

And in addition to setting maximum limits, Parliament sometimes its minimum limit for offences as well. Although courts can often depart from that in can often depart from that in Ultimately Parliament is accountable to the electorate. The public by the impact of crime and its government ministers who are responsible for allocating public funds to the criminal justice system of courts, prisons, motion officers, police and lawyers, and those ministers are ultimately accountable to Parliament and the electorate. Indeed it was striking that Lord Justice Davies took the view in his letter and this point has been made by some contributions today.

That the inclusion of the specific cohorts in the proposed guidelines was not " a policy decision of any significance". The fact of the shadow Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chancellor immediately took a different view to that of the Sentencing Council and that we now have this bill before us might indicate that it was in fact a policy decision of real significance, and that government and Parliament are entitled to have a role in such policy decisions, and so I respectfully agree with much of the speech of the noble and learned Lord Lord Hope of Craighead.

Second, Lord Justice Davies was not letter implied that the judiciary only accept and follow Sentencing Code because they emanate from an independent body on which additional members are in the majority. That with respect cannot be right. Judges follow the guidelines because they are part of a legally mandated framework set out in statute, ultimately derived from Parliament. And my point is that so long as anybody is properly constituted under an act of Parliament of course our judiciary would follow it. Third, and this point has been made earlier, a distinction which Lord Justice Davies draws between courts and what he calls the state is either just somewhat elusive, courts are part of the state, and the website makes that clear, I assume when he referred to the state he actually meant the executive or the government and I agree with him respectfully that the government should not be involved in sentencing individual offenders but the executive and this Parliament should be involved in the sentencing framework and in sentencing policy.

And to that end I do invite the Minister to let us know whether as part of its thinking about the Sentencing Council, the government is again considering a proposal not taken up by the majority of the working group which led to the establishment of the Sentencing Council. At sentencing from the Sentencing Council before they are implemented should be subject to approval by Parliament. Would he also tell us if the government is considering whether the House of Commons Justice Select Committee which at the moment is a statutory consul to proposed guidelines after they have been formulated might itself have a representative on the council itself.

These are constitutional matters, I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord Lord Marks of Hale as to the answer but we do agree that these raise fundamental constitutional points and for those reasons I look forward to working on this short but important bill as it passes through the House. Very grateful to the Minister for his engagement to date, no doubt House in all of its quarters will debate in its usual way and seek to improve this bill in its future stages.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to start my closing speech by paying tribute to the
18:19
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-
-
speech by paying tribute to the noble and learned Lord Petherton, being relatively new to this base, never got to know him but it's clear how much he was deeply respected and admired. And he has been described as a kind person and that is something that I hope one day would be my epitaph. I thank noble Lords for their values and contributions over the course of the debate. The depth of knowledge and experience in this House has been on full display.

There has been a pleasure to be in this place for my noble friend the Baroness Nichols of Selby's maiden speech. I will compare to this place and look forward to working with her in the years to come. You clearly have a lot to contribute. Thank you to the noble Lords who have raised questions over the course of today's debate, and those who have spoken to me privately. I hope they will feel have addressed the points in my closing remarks, if I do not cover them now I will follow-up in writing to address the points.

As the noble and learned Lord Hope said, words matter hope my closing words matter and are helpful to answer noble Lord's questions. As I set out in my opening speech, the Sentencing Council guideline risk differential treatment and as we have discussed this bill is not about the wider role and powers of the Sentencing Council. It is not about restricting the use of presentence reports, in fact the government is committed to increasing the use of presentence reports, rather it is about the specific issue of the Sentencing Council issuing guidelines on presentence reports with reference to an offenders personal characteristics rather than all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case.

A number of noble Lords including noble and learned Lord Phillips, Baroness Hamwee, Right Reverend Prelate and Lord Bach, have asked why this bill is necessary and whether it was possible to resolve the matter the Sentencing Council without primary legislation. In response, I'd explain we first exhausted all other options prior to introducing the legislation, the guideline was due to come into effect on first of April this year. Ahead of this the Lord Chancellor used to existing power to ask the Sentencing Council to reconsider.

Unfortunately, the Sentencing Council declined to revise the draft guideline will stop it was right at that point to act quickly to introduce legislation. As a result the Sentencing Council decided to put the guidelines on pause while Parliament rightly has its say and we are grateful to them for doing so. Acting quickly, prevented guideline coming into affect which risk differential treatment before the law stop this legislation has been necessary to achieve this and to clarify this government, and to equality before the law.

Noble Lords have questioned the scheduling of the bill. But like to reassure my noble Lords that the dates for committee and report have been agreed in the usual channels in the usual way. Noble Lords Lord Jackson of Peterborough, the Right Reverend Prelate, Baroness Fox and Baroness Mattinson have spoken about the importance of trust and constituency in the justice system, as the speed with which we introduce the builder straight this government is definitive and its stance with regard to equality before the law.

The issues that have been raised with regard to this portion and see are the domain of government politics and Parliament. This bill serves to reassert our ability to determine this country's policy on the issue of equality of treatment before the law. As my noble friend Baroness Mattinson set out, we must work to preserve trust in our excellent legal system and I thank her for showing her considered views on this. It is of course essential to victims that they are able to trust in our legal system and know that everyone will be treated equally before the law.

Implementing a sentencing which could lead to differential treatment before the law puts trust in the legal system at risk which is why we acted quickly to address this. To address the question from the noble Lord Lord Jackson and Lord Wilson about what this bill is means for the future of the Sentencing Council I would reiterate the Sentencing Council has done valuable work in consistency to judicial decision- making. Developments on the imposition guidelines have clearly revealed a potential issue, where the council is dictating policy that is not this government and does not express the will of Parliament.

The Lord Chancellor is therefore reviewing the powers and functions of the Sentencing Council. It would not be appropriate to deal with that word issue through fast track legislation given the significant policy and constitutional issues involved and it is right to take the time to consider more fundamental form like this. The Lord Chancellor will be considering all options, I know that many in our Lordship's House will have valuable experience to contribute. Baroness Hamwee and other noble Lords asked how this bill interacts with the review of sentencing being led by David Cork and I ably supported by the noble and learned Lord granite.

I would like to reassure my Lords this bill will not have any impact. This bill is addressing the specific matter at hand regarding the Sentencing Council guidelines. Sentencing Review is a wider review of sentencing and we look forward to considering the recommendations in due course. Turning now to the questions raised over the detail of the bill, which the noble and learned Lord Thomas, the noble and learned Lord Hope, Lord Bach, Lord Beith, and Lord Wolfson have raised, what is clear from this debate is the government was two is to help ensure equality before the law.

We ensure equality before the law. We are clear that an offender should be judged by a court on an individual basis, according to the particular facts and circumstances of the case. It's not for the Sentencing Council to set and guidance the judgement should be made on the basis of personal characteristics like race or ethnicity. The government has used the broad term personal characteristics to make it clear that any reference to preferential treatment is unacceptable. The bill states that personal characteristics include race, religion or belief, or cultural background.

These are examples, not a comprehensive list. Personal characteristics is intended to include a wide-ranging of characteristics, for example 6, and identity, physical disabilities and pregnancy status. This is broader A concept of protected characteristics in the Equality Act, which is a closed list and is not wide enough, for example to address the reference of the guideline to being a member of a cultural narrative. After careful consideration, the government has concluded the most appropriate and principled way to respond to the issues raised by the guidelines is to use the broader concept of personal characteristics in the bill.

The term demographic cohort is used in the build Explanatory Notes, however, the use of demographic cohort was not intended to narrow the definition of personal characteristics. Demographic cohort is a way of describing people who share certain personal characteristics. It is used in the Explanatory Notes to provide additional context. It would not be an appropriate alternative to the current drafting, which would raise difficult questions of definition guarding what amounts to a demographic cohort. Personal characteristics is a term used and understood in other contexts and the government considers it is the best formulation to address the issues raised by the guideline.

The noble Lord bark raised concerns over whether this bill interferes with judicial independence, to be clear, this bill does not in anyway influence individual sentencing decisions. Individual sentencing decisions remain a matter for the independent judiciary. As I have said previously, the issue of tackling disproportionate outcomes in the criminal justice system is a policy matter and should be addressed by government ministers. The narrow change introduced by the bill targets aspects of the Sentencing Code switch relate to equality of input.

We are therefore addressing a policy matter and are not encroaching on judicial independence. It is regrettable some of the recent debates have strayed into comments about individual judges and the decision-making and I judges and the decision-making and I know Lord Bach will be reassured that this government will always support judges to do their jobs independently and I know the Lord Chancellor takes her duty to defend judicial independence very seriously. As the number of noble and learned Lords have said to date we are very lucky to have a world- class and highly regarded judiciary.

The noble Baroness Baroness Hamwee, Right Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rustico Baroness Fox and the noble Baroness Nichols of Selby have raised concerns about the probation capacity which is something I think about in my role on a daily basis. The knock-on effects of this is the consistency and quality of pre- sentence ports. This government supports wider use and improvement of pre-sentence ports in our courts and I agree with the noble Lord Lord Jackson that they can be valuable in all cases for all defendants regardless of their membership.

We are committed to ensuring that presentence reports... What will happen to presentence reports which were being prepared when the bill came into effect. I can reassure her that there will be no impact on presentence reports in the process of being prepared. This bill is not about the ability of the court to request presentence report stop the test remains that under section 30 of the Sentencing Code, at appear so should be requested unless it is considered unnecessary. This is about Council guidelines and the need to protect the principle of equal treatment before the law.

We have publicly outlined the steps were taken to increase capacity enabling it to undertake more valuable work such as this. Next year, we will bring 1,300 additional new trainee probation officers on board and I have spoken, but as noble Lords are well aware, and I have spoken to a number of noble Lords privately about this, it takes time to train and induct new staff and allow them to become the brilliant probation officers we so highly value. I have a lot to do to help our fantastic staff achieve what we know as possible in the service.

To support our probation staff we are embracing to the Chico including AI, work is ongoing that this improving information so critical to an accurate assessment of an offenders risk. New tools are stripping away information officer initiative button. There's a lot Given this process, new staff and better processes are not efficient on their own. Just over 1/4 of a million offenders, we need to think about how we use the probation service more effectively. And the theme of the debate highlighted by Lord Vaux has been tackling disproportionality across the justice system.

We know that more must be done to address inequalities and we are committed to tackling racial disparities. As I am sure Baroness Jones will be pleased to hear. As the Lord Chancellor set out in The Other Place and the Noble Lord has questioned, they have commissioned a review into the data On racial disparities and we will be carefully considering those steps. We will also take action to increase diversity and the staff and work with the judiciary to make sure that our appointments are reflective of the society we serve.

This includes supporting underrepresented groups to join the judiciary. Particular concern has been raised by the noble Baroness Jones about how this will impact women, and in particular, pregnant women. As The Chair of the women's Justice Board, I pay particularly gross attention to this matter and have already spoken with board members. To be clear, nothing in the bill prevents judges from requesting presentence reports for pregnant women, nor will it support case law which supports the presentence report is desirable in the case of pregnant or postnatal women.

Judges, therefore, will continue to be able to request presentence reports in cases where they ordinarily would, including, for example, appropriate cases for pregnant women, and we would expect this to continue. We are committed to achieving equal outcomes for women. In conclusion, this is a targeted and specific which seeks to preserve the important principles of the court before the law and I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and I look forward to engaging with them as the build progresses.

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Second reading, he told the House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Second reading, he told the House that the personal characteristics are used in a number of contexts, justifying it here, I do not expect him to answer this in detail now, him to answer this in detail now, but could he write to the House to explain what those contexts are? So that we have them in our minds as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

well. Is the noble Lords are aware, I am not an expert on the finer details of the law, so that would actually help myself as well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

actually help myself as well. I beg to move. The question is that this bill be now read a second time. As many as now read a second time. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the contrary, "Not content", The My Lords, I beg to that this bill be now committed to a Grand Committees.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Committees. The question is that the Bill be now committed to a Grand Committees. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. My Lords, I will just pause for a moment while those noble Lords who may wish to once sides have sat down may wish to once sides have sat down The The question The question on The question on the The question on the statement The question on the statement made The question on the statement made in the House of Commons yesterday on released update.
18:34
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, the Middle East continues to face a wide-ranging of challenges, as was made clear in the debate in The Other Place yesterday afternoon. Fighting and instability continues in many parts of the region, and state at dozen the Middle East pose an increasing threat to the UK on the domestic stage. Let me start with Syria. As noble Lords will be aware, representatives were in several groups in Syria convened in National dialogue conference in March this year to discuss the new national constitution.

Whilst there was agreement on the commitment to human rights and transitional justice, several groups with the Kurdish and Jewish communities attacking the Government for what they claimed was a lack of representation. Kurdish groups have since claimed that they have secured agreement on a federal system of Government, although this has never been confirmed, no publicly announced by the incumbent Government, so I wonder if the Noble Lord the Minister could please update the House and what the government's assessment is of the involvement for Kurdish groups in the constitutional making process in Syria, and is the Government concerned with the lack of clarity with these threatening the process and my Lords, once we celebrate as the House does we cannot loose out of how important the next steps are in Syria and the way in which the Syrian state is reconstituted is of vital importance to ensuring that a lasting peace can be maintained and the international community must do all it can to ensure that these debates are settled by negotiation, and by compromise, and not further and by compromise, and not further violence.

Syria is a fundamentally important player in the region, and it is vitally important for the sake of the wider international community on destabilising Government not replaced by another one. I therefore ask the Noble Lord the Minister what discussions or support the Government is providing two Syrian authorities on how they can take proactive, balanced steps in the process, and what discussions are the Government having with other global partners such as the US and how the process in Syria can be supported? Noble Lords will have heard in the Home Office statement made in The Other Place yesterday that British counterterrorism police requested several Iranian nationals on suspicion of intent to perform terrorist acts.

The details that we have made it clear that security services are investigating a state- level threat from Iran. I Noble Friend covered this in his earlier remarks, but the matter needs reiterating. They pose a very real, very direct trip to the UK to mystically, as well as to the wider Middle East. It has recently backed an attack on Israel's main international airport and continues to support destabilising organisations across the entire Middle East. Iran continues to pose a great threat to security of Israel, and to its allies.

Rainier authorities this week claimed they were creating a new missile with a range of 1,200 km and have warned that American military bases across the Middle East fall within its scope. Given the scale of the threat Iran poses to us in the UK and to our allies in Israel and to the US, does the Noble Lord the Minister recognise that our continued support of Israel's right to defend itself against such violence is even more essential? In the novel of the Minister also update the House on steps the Government is taking to continue to undermine Iran splined influence in the Middle East? Iran continues to stabilise, threaten, and attack partners across the region and its Foreign Ministry policies often are the most fundamental barriers to any efforts to gain peace in the Middle East.

It is vitally important that the Government addresses the threat robustly, both for our own security and our partners on the world stage. Finally, I wanted to enter Israel. We must remember that 59 innocent hostages continue to be held in cruel captivity by her mass and those who are still alive have no access to aid or communication with their families. These hostages have now been imprisoned for nearly 600 days. We can never forget that it was the kidnapping of these innocent people by hummus and the attacks that contributed to the conflict that we see today.

I therefore want to ask the Noble Lord the Minister what discussions has the Government had with partners in the US and Europe and how those remaining hostages can be freed and return to their families? We are clear that her mass, the terrorist organisation, who have acted tirelessly to inflict pain, misery, and suffering on communities in Israel and Gaza cannot continue to remain in power. They have to be eradicated from the region if we are ever to CA lasting peace. Could the Noble Lord the Minister please confirm that the Government has a clear strategy on removing her mass in Gaza? In conclusion, the UK should support all efforts to secure peace, security, and stability, which means standing up for our allies and our values in proactive engagement with partners across the Middle East.

The Government has a duty to continue this work and I hope the Minister will be able to address as many points in his response. response.
18:40
Baroness Northover Portrait Baroness Northover (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I am addressing the statements that were made in the Commons and has just been in effect repeated in the Lords, which was where the Minister of Commons addressed the announcement made by the Israeli Prime Minister that the Israel security council, and I importing here, has approved a plan to expand and intensify Israel's military operations in Gaza, and that would be my focus because that was the focus of the statement. The Government has pointed out that her mass will not be defeated by military means, and has expressed, and I quote, outrage at actions of the Israeli Government.

Israel has violated the deal with her mass by imposing a siege, and refusing to start phase 2 of the deal. That siege has lasted 65 days. They say that nearly 3008 trucks have been prevented from entering Gaza. They have announced that the food stocks in Gaza have been completely depleted and the statement remains in reference to these points. Does the Minister agree that Israel imposing a siege on Gaza and preventing humanitarian aid constitutes collective punishment of the civilian population, which is illegal under national law.

Israel's finance minister has now said that Gaza will be, and I quote, totally destroyed. Does the Noble Lord the Minister condemned that statement? The Government, in its statements, says that 52,000 people have already been killed, and others have estimated that it is higher. Around 90% of the population of Gaza has been displaced at least once. Many have been displaced multiple times. Israel says that it plans to take over the distribution of humanitarian aid to Gaza at hopes controlled by their military.

The UN has criticised this, as a violation of global human principles, and its agencies will not participate. What action will the Government take here? 105 hostages taken in violation of international law in appalling violence were released in November 2023, and 33 during the latest deal. Four. That is why the Israeli hostage families argue that negotiations have had far greater success in securing the release of hostages than military action. And it is welcome that the Government says that her mass will not be defeated by military means.

That is surely right. Following President Trump's repeated comments, will the Minister confirm that Gaza is, for the Palestinians, that it must be really prorated for the Palestinians. What actions has the Government taken to ensure that Israel adheres to international who military and law in Gaza? And immediately ceases indiscriminate attacks on civilians, protected worker such as aid workers and journalists, unprotected infrastructure such as schools and hospitals. It is essential that we ensure that no UK weapons can be used to perpetrate human rights abuses in Gaza.

With resumption of Israeli strikes on Gaza, does the Minister agree that the UK must now move urgently to suspend more advanced sales to Israel? Israel is continuing its military invasion of the West Bank cities. This included tanks in the city of Jermaine for the first time in 20 years. According to the UN, it has displaced 40,000 Palestinians, who according to the Israeli defence minister, will not be allowed to return for at least one year. The US, the UK, and other European Governments have condemned the continued expansion of the legal settlements, but over 250 illegal settlements have been built across the West Bank.

Now with over 700,000 settlements. Given Israel's refusal to withdraw its illegal settlements, in line with the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, when will the Government take action to stop the continuation of these violations of international law? Can the Minister explain how massive is really settlement expansion is, in anyway, aligned with the government's stated law of the two state solution? The novel of the Minister will know that his colleague in The Other Place, although condemning what was happening, found that MPs were not satisfied with the level of action the Government was taking.

Across the House, that concern was expressed. Therefore, can I ask him, does he not agree that the Government must now join almost 150 other states in recognising a other states in recognising a Palestinian state? Surely, some hope should be offered, that they have should be offered, that they have should be offered, that they have The two-state solution, living side-by-side with security for both side-by-side with security for both sides, with prosperity, I look forward to the noble Lord the Minister POST response.

Minister POST response.
18:46
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
I thank both noble Lords and Baroness Northover for their contributions and questions. Can I start with the noble Lord 's points about Iran and Syria, and of course Iran continues to stabilise the region through its political, financial and military support to partners and proxies, including Hezbollah and Hamas, and we have been clear that they must cease this support, and certainly long-term peace has the Middle East cannot be achieved without addressing Iran 's destabilising activities.

And of course the president has spoken about greater engagement with the West, and for this to succeed, Iran needs to end that destabilising behaviour. I would certainly say that the collapse of the Assad regime has weakened Iran, and its so-called axis of resistance, the Syrian led and owned political transition process leading to an inclusive, nonsectarian and representative government, is vital and that is what we are aiming to support in terms of Syria and I think our diplomatic efforts to ensure that we judge the new government by their actions and not simply that words, but last week at the UN Security Council I had the opportunity to meet briefly with the permanent representative from Syria and I made these points very strongly, that we are committed to support a new Syria, physically focused on economic growth that can actually deliver for the people of Syria and we are absolutely committed to do that.

But of course as the noble Lady Baroness Northover focused, the main part of the statement was of course in relation statement was of course in relation to Israel Gaza situation, and certainly the occupied territories. And can I be absolutely clear. Because my honourable friends in the other place was very clear, the United Kingdom opposes an expansion of Israel 's military operations in Gaza, continued fighting is in nobody's interest. And we urge all parties to return urgently to talks, implement the ceasefire agreement in full, release the hostages, and work towards permanent Peace and Security Forum Israelis and Palestinians -- piece at a fit Israelis and Palestinians.

The remaining hostages must be released and the way to return them is through a deal. A two-state solution, and by the way to reassure the noble lady, Palestinian territory must not be reduced to the conduct of this, there must be no. Placement of people from Gaza. A two-state solution remains the only path to a just and lasting peace. And can I just say that in terms of our government? Actions, just to reassure the noble lady, I hear what she said about the discussions in the other place.

But we have been as a government absolutely focused on this and certainly the Foreign Secretary has spoken to secretary Rubio, the special and, Steve Repco, the Israeli Foreign Minister, the Israeli Minister for strategic affairs, High Representative, the UN emergency relief coordinator, Tom Fletcher, and of course the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary hosted the Palestinian Authority Prime Minister on 28 April in London and signed a landmark memorandum of understanding. Underpinning our strategic part. And reaffirming our commitment to a two state solution.

Absolutely committed to that. I also, on 23rd of April, together with France and Germany, the Foreign Secretary issued a joint statement calling on Israel to immediately restart the flow of aid into Gaza stop reiterating our outrage at recent strikes by Israeli forces on the humanitarian personnel and certainly I also gave a statement to the UN Security Council on 28th of April where I pressed for a ceasefire, the release of hostages, and I also called for an end to the block on aid, and a path to long- term peace.

And we are certainly putting all our diplomatic efforts into that. And can I just say that our commit to a two-state solution is unwavering. We are committed to recognising a Palestinian state. At a time that has the most impact in achieving this reality. And is most conducive to long-term prospects for peace. We are clear, absolutely clear, that does not need to be at the end of the process. And certainly whilst I was in New York I spoke to the French Foreign Minister and committed this government fourth.

To the two-state solution conference that will be held in June. I think these are the ingredients to that pathway for delivering a two-state solution, working with our allies. And we should take the opportunity to build on the plan for Gaza's future and develop an incredible security and governance plans acceptable to both Israel and the Palestinians. We must seize that opportunity but I would make clear to Noble Lords and I have repeated this on many occasions, there is no role for Hamas in that future Gaza situation, or for Palestinian state that is recognised by the international community.

Can I also say that we are appalled by Israel blocking aid when it is needed at greater volume and speed than ever before. Israel has now blocked aid for over 50 days and it is an obligated under international law to facilitate humanitarian assistance by all means at its assistance by all means at its disposal and we stand ready to work alongside Israel, the UN and our partners to assist, but as the UN said, it is hard to see how if implemented, the new Israeli plan to deliver a IIa private companies would be consistent with humanitarian principles, and meet the scale of the need.

We need urgent clarity from the Israeli government on the intentions in this regard. But I have obviously reported before, I will announce a package of support for the occupied territories, including £100 million in humanitarian aid, and support for the Palestinian economic development. We have been absolutely clear in relation to the extension of settlement. We are absolutely clear they are illegal under international law. My comments reassure both noble Lords and the noble Lady that we remain absolutely committed to seeking a solution that protects the interests of the state
18:55
18:55
18:55
18:55
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
including those providing vital medical assistance, if they call for justice or accountability. These justice or accountability. These agencies and their dedicated staff have years of experience treating Palestinians with compassion and respect in the international community should insist that aid from these organisations flows freely and without threat or

**** Possible New Speaker ****

impediment. I think the noble Lady is absolutely right. We have been absolutely focused on ensuring that absolutely focused on ensuring that agencies are allowed to deliver aid and certainly when we had a question and certainly when we had a question on this when we last considered this matter, I made clear that we were matter, I made clear that we were ready and willing with agencies, ready and willing with agencies, when this block by Israel is lifted, we are ready to do that, but we are we are ready to do that, but we are working very hard dramatically to ensure that they do allow the aid to ensure that they do allow the aid to get into people who are most in need.

I didn't address the question that the noble Lady Baroness that the noble Lady Baroness Northover raised in relation to arms export and international humanitarian law. This government humanitarian law. This government has suspended relevant licences for the IDF that might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international law in Gaza. Of the
18:56
18:57
18:58
18:59
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
That was in idea put forward by the noble Baroness Lady Northover so the Foreign Office should have had time to consider it by now. I would like to hear what their responses because then there are negotiations on the two-state solution should talk about issues, all about the other issues, they might take a long time to conclude but we would have at least removed from the issue at the table the issue of ignition and we would be in a better place.

Does he not think so? And could he share with the House that anything the government has been able to glean about the two rounds for negotiations between the United States and Iran over the nuclear To answer the latter point, I'm not able to give him any further information in relation to those discussions. Could I just say at the Security Council when the French Foreign Minister was chairing it we had the discussion on Gaza, we made it absolutely clear that we thought it was really important and I made it clear that their leadership in preparing for the conference in June has been absolutely vital and we want to make our full contribution in moving to a two-state solution.

We have been in touch with all key partners in the run-up and we should take the opportunities to ensure we build upon the Arab plan for the Gaza future. I repeat, we have been absolutely clear that we will recognise a Palestinian state at a time when it is most conducive to delivering the two-state solution. I delivering the two-state solution. I will not predict the outcome of the June conference and I will not predict what our position will be, but I do think our absolute but I do think our absolute commitment to it is about how we best achieve it on a sustainable footing.

footing.
19:02
19:03
19:04
19:05
19:06
19:07
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
Nothing about how peace will be dealt with, about education, about health, and about where people will go when parts of the world are being rebuilt if there is anywhere for them to go. It is all about peace, but nothing else on how peace will be, who will be on the ground. There is nothing about that. How do we deal with America? They do not believe in sexual violence in conflict any more and will not look at women at the peace table either.

I want to be reassured that we will have women there and will abide by what was agreed before and we will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tell the Americans this. As she knows from previous

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As she knows from previous debates we are committed to the women peace and and certainly when women peace and and certainly when we were a special envoy for women and girls, Baroness Harman and girls, Baroness Harman and and girls, Baroness Harman and I were at the commission on the status of women at the United Nations and of women at the United Nations and we absolutely focused on this subject, about how you ensure that subject, about how you ensure that when you talk about peace, you when you talk about peace, you include and embrace women in that process.

The support we have given process. The support we have given to the Palestinian Authority focuses on that as well. When the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary met the Palestinian Authority again
19:08
19:09
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
being seized by enemy forces. If you have been to the crossing as I have will know the aid is being stolen by will know the aid is being stolen by her -- by Hamas for their own advantage. We urge Israel to sit down and negotiate with I assume Hamas. What steps are the government taking to find moderate groups of people to outreach to them to encourage them to create civic society and get them to the negotiating table because they are the only interlocutors that can reach an agreement that would be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

acceptable to all parties. I suspect people in the state of Israel share those commitments and Israel share those commitments and Israel share those commitments and we welcome president Trump, US involvement in achieving the ceasefire agreement. The government ceasefire agreement. The government of Israel and ceasefire agreement of Israel and ceasefire agreement and how -- Hamas has broken some of and how -- Hamas has broken some of it. Both sides have an agreement. Let's ensure they return so that we can get a ceasefire and aid comes in as necessary.

I hear what they say as necessary. I hear what they say about aid being stolen by Hamas and about aid being stolen by Hamas and others, but the simple fact is and I mentioned this before, the scale of the problem is so huge we must use the problem is so huge we must use every mechanism to get in. A very serious, and they have looked at the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

humanitarian crisis in Gaza. That would help end the suffering

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That would help end the suffering and end the violence we have seen would be the release of the hostages. What is the government doing to actually put pressure along doing to actually put pressure along with our partners to release the hostages? Why does he think the hostages? Why does he think the hostages remain in captivity, dead and alive?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and alive? I think I have made clear to the House and I repeat to the noble Lord House and I repeat to the noble Lord that we have been absolutely clear that the remaining hostages must be that the remaining hostages must be released and so that is... The way released and so that is... The way to do that is the deal that was agreed and I think that that is agreed and I think that that is really important. We have been speaking to our allies and partners speaking to our allies and partners to ensure they are putting pressure on all parties to ensure a return to the negotiating table, to stick to the ceasefire agreement, so that we can get the hostages released and I can get the hostages released and I think he is right that that is the way forward.

It is important that way forward. It is important that they are released and they are the priority, but we must ensure we get priority, but we must ensure we get that humanitarian aid in to support that humanitarian aid in to support the people of Gaza and the women and children who have been killed are children who have been killed are not responsible for holding the hostages. And the long-term path to peace in the Middle East and securing the two-state solution that my noble friend spoke passionately about will only come from the bottom up in civil society by changing supporting attitudes among Israelis and Palestinians towards coexistence.

In this spirit, what update can the Minister provide on UK support for the International fund for Israeli- Palestinian peace?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I cannot give an up-to-date

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I cannot give an up-to-date report, but I have worked with a number of noble friends and across number of noble friends and across the House to ensure that those community building efforts that have been incredibly successful, particularly in terms of developing youth employment and developing youth employment and developing enterprises, all of these things help contribute to building a
19:14
Baroness Deech Portrait Baroness Deech (Crossbench)
-
-
help contribute to building a peaceful coexistence, but unless we address the fundamental issue of the situation in Gaza, we are unable to make that progress that she and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

both desire. It is a sad coincidence that this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a sad coincidence that this is followed by the situation in is followed by the situation in India and Pakistan. Both situations are ones where this country was responsible for dividing land in a responsible for dividing land in a way that was unsuitable and crude and led to trouble ever since and has led to migration and displacement. As far as recognition goes, India-Pakistan is a sad goes, India-Pakistan is a sad instance of how recognition does not instance of how recognition does not solve a historic Millenia old solve a historic Millenia old division between two peoples.

I do not have a solution, but I will say that as far as recognition can go in that as far as recognition can go in Palestine, over 100 countries Palestine, over 100 countries recognise Palestine. It made no difference whatsoever. I don't know why but it doesn't make a why but it doesn't make a difference. As the noble lady said, it takes more than that. If there is to be recognition and peace, it starts with recognition. UN RWA teaches children to hate and teaches teaches children to hate and teaches them that one day they will return and overrun Israel.

And tell and overrun Israel. And tell Palestinians accept history. There is no going back, no right of return, especially coming from this country with its particular responsibility will help and I call responsibility will help and I call on the Minister to dial down the temperature by talking about peaceful education and also not peaceful education and also not always challenging Israel on everything it says, particularly in everything it says, particularly in the relation of figures of casualties. Hamas figure is away casualties.

Hamas figure is away
19:16
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
Effort into her on a number of occasions in relation to the written questions asked on the casualties, and to hear what she says but everyone I think in this chamber understands that there have been huge casualties and there is certainly a humanitarian crisis. But can I say, I agree with her. I mean I've been, and I think Noble Lords will appreciate, for many years very committed to this supporting the existence of the state of Israel. I remain of that view, but for me, the state of Israel's security is best supported through an arrangement where we do see two states living side-by-side.

We have divided communities now, and I do think, and my Noble Friend Baroness Berger is my Noble Friend Baroness Berger is also committed to a two-state solution. That is the way forward, and I think she is right also that and I think she is right also that we do need to ensure that we can take action to build that community take action to build that community cohesion and support. And certainly education is vital to that. Sadly at education is vital to that.

Sadly at the moment, the people of Gaza and the children of Gaza are not getting education at all. Move to the next business. Repeat of a statement made in the House of Commons today, India Pakistan escalation, Lord Commons. -- The Noble Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With permission I will make a statement on India and Pakistan. The whole House will have been closely whole House will have been closely following developments in recent weeks following the horrific weeks following the horrific terrorist attacks on 22 April that terrorist attacks on 22 April that left 26 tourists attend. Last night, soon after 21:00 hours British standard time, Indian forces standard time, Indian forces launched missile strikes against nine sites in Pakistan and Pakistani nine sites in Pakistan and Pakistani administered Kashmir.

The government of India have described their actions as measured, non-escalate tree, proportionate and responsible. tree, proportionate and responsible. And deliberately targeted at terrorist infrastructure. Following terrorist infrastructure. Following India's actions last night, a military spokesperson for Pakistan has stated that 26 Pakistanis have died and 46 were injured. Including died and 46 were injured. Including civilians and children. At a meeting of the National Security committee earlier today, the Pakistani government has stated that it reserves the right to respond in a manner of its choosing.

This is an incredibly delicate moment in an evolving and fast moving situation. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister noted in Prime Minister's Questions, rising tensions between India and Pakistan are a serious concern. The government has been monitoring the situation closely and staying in close contact with all the key partners. Since the developments overnight, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has been in contact with the Indian external affairs Minister and the Pakistani deputy minister and Foreign Minister.

Our commissioners in Delhi and Islamabad have also been in close contact with their host, and this morning, I spoke to the Pakistani Finance Minister. And the Foreign Secretary has also been coordinating closely with other partners, notably the United States and in the Gulf. Our consistent message to both India and Pakistan has been to show restraint. The United Kingdom has a close and unique relationship with both countries. It is heartbreaking to see civilian lives being lost if this escalates further....

We clearly condemned the horrific terrorist attack last month, the worst such attack in India administered Kashmir in many years, but now we need all sides to focus urgently on the steps needed to restore regional stability and ensure the protection of civilians. The United Kingdom will continue to work closely with our international partners in pursuit of short-term deescalation and longer-term stability. The Foreign Secretary will have a chance to discuss the situation with EU Foreign Minister's in Warsaw today.

And he and the whole government will stay in close touch with the governments of India and Pakistan as well as those with influence in the region. Deescalation is of the utmost importance, not least given the large numbers of British nationals in the region. The safety of British nationals will always be our priority. Overnight, we issued factual updates to our travel advice for both India and Pakistan. Updating British nationals on military activity and potential disruption to flights in the region.

British nationals in India and Pakistan should stay up-to-date with our travel advice and follow the advice of local authorities. I am acutely aware that for many communities, across the United Kingdom, and members across this House, that this is a very personal and sensitive situation. The British Pakistani and British Indian communities make a huge contribution to this country. We recognise this will be a very difficult time for many. We look to all community and faith leaders to spread a message that now is the time for coming that now is the time for coming together across religious and ethnic together across religious and ethnic differences.

Mr Speaker, we now need to see calm heads. Britain will to see calm heads. Britain will continue to play our full part for deescalation and diplomacy. I deescalation and diplomacy. I commend this statement to the House. commend this statement to the House.
19:22
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, the dramatic escalation of tensions that the Minister has referred to between India and Pakistan is to put it mildly, a cause for great concern. Since the terror attack in Kashmir last month, both countries have engaged in tip for tat measures against each other, including expelling diplomats, suspending visas, and closing border crossings. However, this level of violence we now see marks a significant shift in how the fallout from the attack is being conducted. Indian authorities have said that the sites that they targeted were, " Terrorist infrastructure." And places where Kashmir attacks were, " Planned and directed".

These benches are clear that India should always hold the right to take reasonable and proportionate steps to defend itself through further terror attacks -- from. The UK has long- standing security agreements with India and we are in a position to support our partners in combating terrorist threats. Which affect us all collectively. So I'd like to ask the Noble Lord what assistance the government are providing to Indian authorities to help protect against authorities to help protect against further terrorist attacks and does the Minister agree that the UK should act in partnership with India to prevent further terror attacks from being undertaken against its population? We discussed this matter in the aftermath of the Kashmir attacks last month.

Noble Lords on all sides of the House implore the government to urge restraint and to use its diplomatic leverage with both sides to prevent a further escalation of violence which many feared could be on the horizon. So could the Noble Lord the Minister please update the House on the talks that his government had at that point with both Indian and Pakistani authorities in the immediate aftermath of those Kashmir attacks? Dizzy believe that the government should change the way it approaches these discussions, given the further violence we have witnessed this week? Finally, I want to touch on how this escalation could affect by aspirin communities here in the UK.

There is of course a risk that the tensions we are seen played out on the world stage could affect communities from those respective countries in Britain. Whilst working to encourage peace and deescalation on the world stage, we have to also make sure that we secure this here at home. Sick of the Noble Lord the Minister please outline the steps the government is taking to work with these respective communities -- so could, in order to prevent tensions from becoming more serious, and can he ensure the House that the government will work with partners in the police and security services to help keep these communities safe? Recent events have demonstrated that an information gap can inflame conspiracy theories and empower those who seek to spread false information at home, particularly on social media.

I appreciate this of course is a developing situation, but I hope the Noble Lord the Minister can appreciate the importance of keeping the House and the country updated on any further clarification that the government receives on the details of these events to help spread... -- Dispel this information. -- Misinformation. Can the Minister commit to updating the House when information is forthcoming? The escalation we've seen is immensely serious, and both communities in the region and at home are deeply concerned about what further violence may hold.

I urge the government to redouble their efforts to make every use of the diplomatic relations that we have with both India and Pakistan to encourage a non-violent resolution to this matter. Violence gets violence. And a peaceful resolution must be at the heart of its efforts to engage with both India and Pakistan. -- back gets. But we have a duty to prevent any further attacks from being carried out attacks from being carried out against their own people and a duty to ensure these tensions are not to ensure these tensions are not imported into the UK and I hope the Noble Lord the Minister can provide reassurance to the House that this risk has been identified and is being managed.
19:27
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I also like to thank the Noble Lord the Minister for repeating the statement in the House. Reports of Indian military strikes against locations in Pakistan administered Kashmir and Pakistan as well as shelling by Pakistan are indeed very alarming. Particularly as we have here two nuclear powers, it becomes even more vital that India and Pakistan de-escalate the current crisis and avoid engaging in further action. Maintaining open lines of communication is clearly vital. So I wonder if the Noble Lord could spell out what further engagements the UK government plans with these governments and with other partners, including the UN, to help maintain an open dialogue between them and to support international attempts at mediation.

Once again, violence is not the answer. The murder of 26 people was indeed horrific and every effort must be made to bring the gunman to justice. Terrorist have an interest in destabilising both sides. And that's why it's vital to engage with the leaders on both sides like terrorists. So I would like to no more about how the government is working to support the open dialogue between India and Pakistan. I know that it has been very difficult over the years, but specifically, how was the government working alongside international partners to encourage New Delhi to reverse its suspension of the Indus water Treaty, and how is the government working with Islamabad to agree to reopen its airspace to Indian owned airlines? What else can the international community do to help stabilise relationships now, and could the Noble Lord the Minister fill in more details about what is being done to support British citizens in the area? The government also needs to ensure that all those of Indian and Pakistani descent living in the United Kingdom are fully supported.

For many, the latest escalations will be of grave concern to them and their families. How is the UK government working to support these communities in the wake of recent escalation? And does the noble Lord the Minister has just the noble Lord the Minister has just mentioned, there is a risk that social media, disinformation may social media, disinformation may inflame matters here. How was that being monitored and addressed? Could he spell out what the government is he spell out what the government is doing? We do indeed face so many conflicts.

Ukraine, the Middle East conflicts. Ukraine, the Middle East which we have just discussed, Sudan. So many global challenges. Therefore So many global challenges. Therefore everything must be done to stop this one escalating into yet another one. one escalating into yet another one. I look forward to the Noble Lord the minister's reply. minister's reply.
19:30
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
I thank the noble Lady and the Noble Lord for their contributions, and certainly our message is very clear. Regional stability is in the interests of both India and Pakistan. If this escalates further, nobody wins. As the noble Lady says. And all about risk if we encourage both countries to engage in effective dialogue and find a swift diplomatic route to maintain support. I think what I would say is the Prime Minister -- as the Prime Minister to settle earlier today, rising tensions between India and Pakistan will be as she acknowledged a serious concern to many across the United Kingdom.

And we are engaging urgently with both countries as well as other international partners, encouraging dialogue, deescalation encouraging dialogue, deescalation encouraging dialogue, deescalation The Prime Minister The Prime Minister has The Prime Minister has been The Prime Minister has been in The Prime Minister has been in touch with counterparts in both countries as well as the US and France to encourage dialogue, avoid further escalation on all sides and ensure the protection of civilians and we are taking that dialogue including through the United Nations and of course I emphasise civilians must be protected and we urge India and Pakistan to respect international humanitarian law.

The loss of civilian life is tragic and I'm deeply saddened by the news of casualties and I offer my condolences to the families who have lost loved ones. The noble Lady asked about efforts to support British nationals and protecting our citizens is the first duty of any government and the safety of British nationals in the region remains a priority. We monitor developments closely and stand ready to support any British nationals 24 seven. As the Foreign Secretary outlined, British nationals in the region should follow the FCDO travel advice for the country they are in along with advice of local authority and we have issued overnight factual updates of the travel advice for India and Pakistan and this included the disruption of flights to and from India and following the government announcement of the civil defence in May and this drill may include temporary power cuts or blackouts and suspension of mobile signals.

Specifically, for Pakistan, airspace restrictions may be announced or changed at short notice and British nationals should contact the line for up-to-date information. I would like to address what both I would like to address what both noble Lords raised which is of course as the Prime Minister set out earlier today the rising tensions between India and Pakistan will be of serious concern to many across Britain. My colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, communities and local government continue to liaise with the diaspora community here and my noble friend Lord Khan has been committed to doing this and he is arranging for Parliamentary engagement meetings to ensure MPs will be fully aware of what we are doing.

Certainly last week, we emphasised when the Right Reverend Prelate asked a question, we were focused on ensuring faith leaders were involved to ensure that those tensions were addressed through building community cohesion. I would also address the points raised about security. Security is of deep concern to India and Pakistan and certainly Minister Faulkner set out today that we are concerned about the deteriorating security situation in Pakistan and the United Kingdom and Pakistan has a shared interest in countering terrorism which is impacting our neighbours, and we are committed to working together to combat that terrorist throughout and combat that terrorist throughout and I think the noble Lord appreciates I I think the noble Lord appreciates I won't go into specific details about that, but he can be rest assured we are concerned and we are doing everything we can to address the concern.
19:35
19:36
19:37
19:39
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
I thank him for those questions and I think he is right. Last week we addressed an urgent question where we covered the water treaty and we appealed for them not to and we appealed for them not to disrupt it. Access to water is a fundamental thing for human life and I understand the point he makes in terms of airspace. Any action by both governments that can de- escalate and create that opportunity for a return to stable relationships is absolutely important.

All diplomatic efforts are to ensure deescalation which I know Minister Faulkner stressed earlier on today and we are working through all and we are working through all possible channels to deliver that message. He is right to focus on message. He is right to focus on community cohesion and we will focus on that as well. It is not just the on that as well. It is not just the governments voice. All community and faith leaders can embrace that and I welcome his comments very much.

 The report from Lord Austin on the tensions and violence in Leicester in 2023 is obviously still awaiting, but could the Minister reassure the House that officials across government and locally in those regions have been able to apply learning and lessons from what happened in 2023 to ensure the greatest possible resilience and outreach between communities to ensure no repeat of the violence?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree. All government departments, particularly my departments, particularly my colleagues in the ministry for local government and community is focused government and community is focused on learning the lessons of the past and certainly they will be aware of and certainly they will be aware of his comments, but I think the current situation is such that we current situation is such that we must do more, we must call on all community leaders and faith leaders
19:41
19:42
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
Indians and Pakistani origin and as a result they should be one and the escalation of war does not do any good to us in this country or other countries with a large amount of Pakistani and Indian people. They are settled. It is better for our own interest to have community cohesion that we exercise pressure and for the greater good of humanity they will stop and work on peace because there is no winner in wars.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think he is right and as I said at the beginning if the situation escalates further nobody wins. He is escalates further nobody wins. He is absolutely right and I reassure him and I think I said in my other and I think I said in my other responses that the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, and the Foreign Secretary and the Minister Foreign Secretary and the Minister are absolutely focused on one objective, which is to ensure objective, which is to ensure dialogue and deescalation.

He is right to focus on the fact there is right to focus on the fact there is a dividend for peace and it is about economic growth and serving the people in both countries. people in both countries.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I remember it like it was yesterday. I received a briefing before I was posted by the Home before I was posted by the Home Office to New Delhi in 2004 about how dangerous the conflict had become in the preceding year. Everyone's efforts were focused on Everyone's efforts were focused on urgently deescalating both sides and it was essential cool heads prevail. The international community played an absolutely essential role to make sure both sides realised how serious the situation was getting and de- escalate.

I am grateful for everything you are doing and can he reassure us we will provide the same role again? It was essential that the international community played and it could easily get out of hand.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree. I think the Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree. I think the Minister Faulkner made it clear in the other place about our commitment to work place about our commitment to work with our allies, but at all levels of government from the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary committed to doing that, working with allies. It is trying to ensure we maintain the situation where both sides start talking rather than taking action.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

talking rather than taking action. There is a large number of Indian origin and Pakistani origin, Kashmiri origin local councillors Kashmiri origin local councillors from all political parties. Can he tell us the conversations he had tell us the conversations he had about employing them to help ease tension at this extremely difficult tension at this extremely difficult

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think it's the other way round actually. My Noble Friend Lord Khan spoke to me today about his efforts and his work. Of course we had quite and his work. Of course we had quite a detailed exchange last week following an urgent question where
19:46
19:46
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, we move to the next business. Questions on a statement made in the House of Commons on counterterrorism policing arrests on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

3 May. My Lords, I want to start by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I want to start by paying tribute to the police and paying tribute to the police and security services and other agencies across the country who have worked and continue to work around the clock to keep our country safe. Ken clock to keep our country safe. Ken McCullin the director-general of MI5 revealed last year that the British revealed last year that the British security services have foiled 53 security services have foiled 53 late stage terror plots since 2019.

Everyone threatened to attack our Everyone threatened to attack our very way of life. The work that our police and security services do police and security services do every day should not be taken for granted and I know the whole House will join me in recognising this work and pain thanks to those men and women who protect us. Now to the and women who protect us. Now to the offence on 3 May, the scale of this operation is simply quite operation is simply quite staggering.

Eight men in total have been arrested by the Metropolitan Police counterterrorism command, five on suspicion of preparation of a terrorist act and several locations -- in several locations across the country. I appreciate this is a sensitive and ongoing matter and that the Noble Lord the Minister is limited in what he can say. However, it's clear from what the Minister said yesterday in the other place that there are grounds to believe that this was a threat made at a state level by Iran.

My Lords, the threat posed to British lives by Iran is considerable. Last year, it was confirmed that the intelligence services and the police had identified 20 credible uranium plots to kill or kidnap people in the UK since 2022. And what we've seen in the last few weeks is not an isolated incident. But another attempt to undermine our values, way of life and the safety of our people. And given the scale of the risk posed by Iran and Iranian- backed organisations, I want to ask the Noble Lord the Minister what advice has the government received from police and the intelligence agencies about prescribing the Iranians Revolutionary guard Corps? What is the government's assessment of the impact of prescription in terms of how it will improve their capacity to combat the threat posed by the Iranian Revolutionary guard Corps? And furthermore, can the Noble Lord the Minister please update the House on the discussions the UK government is having with their counterparts in Iran to hold them to account for the threats that organisation posed to our democratic society? And security? We have an ambassador and diplomats in Tehran.

In the Noble Lord the Minister confirmed the urgent discussions are being undertaken with Iranian authorities on this matter? And it is important that the government takes appropriate steps to strengthen their resolve against those who wish to harm us and our communities, and we on these benches welcome any steps made in that direction. The news of these arrests will naturally make people worried. And there will be communities around the country who will feel particularly at risk given the nature of the arrests made.

Without speculating on any specific target, but you know the Noble Lord the Minister is unable to do, can he nonetheless provide assurances to communities around the country that safeguards are in place to make sure that they are kept safe? And I'm aware that the Minister making the statement in the other place said that the government would not be providing a running commentary on the progress of the investigation, but can the Noble Lord the Minister committee perhaps keeping the House updated with any further developments? This is a serious issue of national security and people are feeling under threat in a very tangible sense.

The issuance of the government will keep us informed about how the working to mitigate the threat we face and how they are working to implement safeguards for the future would be most welcome. And then I will be much appreciated by those communities who are more likely to be targeted by the Iranians actors. I want to close by reiterating my thanks for the work of our security services and the police who have likely saved several lives indeed through their work on lives indeed through their work on this case alone.

Whilst I appreciate this is an ongoing and sensitive this is an ongoing and sensitive matter, I hope the Noble Lord the Minister will address a few questions I have raised and I know questions I have raised and I know that any assurances he can give to communities at risk will be most welcome. welcome.
19:51
Baroness Doocey Portrait Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I too would like to take this opportunity to thank the security services and police for what they do. The weekends arrests are an important reminder of how hard they work behind-the-scenes to keep us all safe. The scale of the threat posed by the Iranian regime is great. And there is clear evidence after Rand's willingness to disregard the rule of law -- Tehran's, to silence critics feel extremism. UK-based Iranians have been the main targets with mounting proof of Iran seeking to control its citizens abroad through intimidation, harassment and violence.

This culminated in last year's stabbing of a journalist working for the TV station Iran international, attacked outside his London home, and Iranian journalists, including those working for the BBC's Persian service, facing daily threats of violence. Meanwhile, Iranian intelligence continues to tire -- target Israeli anti-Iranian internationals abroad. I too would like to know if the Mr can confirm extra security measures are in place to provide vulnerable communities and individuals with protection amidst these unacceptable and direct attacks on both media and religious freedoms.

In opposition, the government were clear that they supported the prescribing of the Iranian Revolutionary guard Corps as a terrorist organisation. Can I take take that step in June, and the United States in 2019, but in Britain we have yet to make that call, preferring to keep the communication channels open. Does the Minister agree that this weekends events indicate this policy is not working and that there is now... Is now the time for the government to act and prescribe the ARG C as a terrorist organisation? Not only will this allow tighter control of the U.K.'s borders, it would enable the police to proactively charge those who materially or financially support the IRGC and enable assets linked to the organisation to be frozen? The Liberal Democrats have previously welcomed sanctions against those with links to the Iranian regime, and we will support proposals to sanction Iranian-backed FoxTrot criminal network when they come before the House next week.

However, we hope the government can go further to establish whether those with links to the Iranians regime have assets here in the UK. As such we would like to see an audit carried out so we can find out where those assets are, including those put in the name of family members so we can freeze them accordingly. Thanks to the work of the police and security services, we appear to have been lucky this time, but we must now heed this warning and do more to ensure the Iranians regimes reach cannot continue to spread.

Given the threat, does the Minister agree that now is not the time to cut the overseas budget, which had previously been used to support vital resilience programs, countering Iran is malign influence? It's already clear that the foundations of the previous world foundations of the previous world order are shifting fast with America increasingly taking a step back. So increasingly taking a step back. So can the Minister reassure the House that the government is taking steps that the government is taking steps to fill the void by working with its international partners to combat Iran and address the wider situation in the Middle East? in the Middle East?
19:55
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to both frontbenchers for their questions and I will try to answer them as best I can. Just to summarise for the House and for Noble Lords, colleagues will know that on Saturday, 3 May, counterterrorism police undertake a series of arrests relating to what you must make clear are two separate incidents. And investigations, and a total of eight men were arrested by the Metropolitan police counterterrorism command under counterterrorism and national security legislation. I can update the House to confirm that seven of those eight men are currently remaining in custody and one is on bail with extremely serious and tight conditions.

They are the first Iranian nationals arrested under the National Security act, and I want to join the trivia that has been made to the police and security services who have managed this event and brought the issues to conclusions. On 3 May. However, as colleagues have mentioned, this is an ongoing investigation and therefore I am limited in what I can say and what I can comment upon in relation to some of the issues. But I do want to say first and foremost that it is important that we hold Iran to account.

It's been in both contributions what the government can do to hold Iran to account, and colleagues and Noble Lords and Baroness's will recall that earlier this year we announced in both Houses of Parliament the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme, which is coming into effect on July 1 and which ensures that Iran is one of the first countries designated under that scheme, has to put a number of, well individuals who are under that scheme have two bring forward a number of issues by July 1 to register under that scheme.

We've also sanctioned, as the noble Lady has mentioned, a number of criminal entities that take ran users to do its bidding -- Terrorgram, -- Turan, which will come under both houses. Alongside also 450 Iranians individuals and entities that have been sanctioned to date by the UK government. Both frontbenchers have mentioned prescription. It is common knowledge that we keep that under constant review. We have asked Jonathan Paul Casey to provide a view on the counterterrorism framework which doesn't really fit neatly with existing states to date.

But the Home Secretary has asked Jonathan Hall to lead a review and I can confirm to the House today that that review has been finalised and we will be publishing it and its response shortly. The colleagues in both houses to examine and will make further announcements in due course on those particular issues. It's also been praised what steps will be taken on international engagement and whether we have consulted our allies and whether the Foreign Office have summoned the Iranian ambassador.

In the statement we said the investigation is still in its early stages, and the police following various lines of enquiry as to the possible motivation of those currently arrested and in custody or on police bail. And as the investigation progresses, I ensure the House make sure the House that I will both engage internationally as appropriate but also report back to the House on the issues that we have raised. But we are stronger when we are united, and our allies are supportive of the our allies are supportive of the action over the weekend where this news is broken, and to know that the Foreign Office and Foreign Secretary have reached out to key international partners to discuss this events with them.

We have judged sanctions to be an extremely vital tool in deterring and disrupting Iranians align acts, and its human rights violations, and we will be exploring further sanctions against Iranians linked criminals and the National Crime Agency will particularly target those who assist the IRGC and others to launder their money. The noble Lady has mentioned the overseas aid budget. There is some difficult decisions the government is taking. We haven't yet finalised, and I've been in discussions with ministers in the Foreign Office about that.

As it impacts upon areas of the Home Office responsibility, but those issues are not yet finalised, so again unfortunately I cannot give any further detail to the noble Baroness at this particular point. Both the frontbenchers have mentioned that it's important that we ensure that individuals who are under threat are protected, and again, members of the House will know that the Home Office has worked with other government departments as well as other relevant government agencies to protect those identified as being at risk.

The police and security services as well as tracking down potential plots and threats are working tirelessly to take other steps to ensure the take other steps to ensure the Members well-known the government has a general scheme for places of worship which are particularly in relation to members of the Jewish community and we have significant resource invested in both protecting diplomatic missions and also places of worship and individuals rights to practice religion at their chosen place of worship. I cannot give details and I'm grateful colleagues have not asked for further information on possible targets because it's an ongoing operation, but I hope I can reassure the House by saying police confirmed they are in contact with the site of the potential target and offered support and provided further security and other relevant advice and at the appropriate time when it is safe to do so the police will and I will through the House confirmed the alleged target of this plot at an appropriate time.

The Home Secretary gave a commitment on both houses via herself and Security Minister and myself in this House when it is operationally possible to do so and we will be looking at the review of state threats and the prescription to the matter of urgency and I will hopefully report on what Jonathan Hall will have said and I recommend it to government and our response shortly. This is an ongoing investigation. When further information comes to light the government will bring it to both houses, but I felt it important following the incident on the third of May and the arrest on the third of May made a statement, however general, to update the House on what general, to update the House on what is important disruptive element by the security services who I reserve the security services who I reserve absolute praise for in terms of absolute praise for in terms of tracking and taking action to prevent this alleged incident that will in due course be further will in due course be further notified of the House of the contents of that incident.

contents of that incident. I welcome his words today as we make this statement, but I think there was a part coming. -- but coming. As night follows day, the maligned hand will be in the middle of this and this is a serious escalation in the terror threat. I am not asking him to comment, but I'm asking for the benefit of my view. We are surely in a position

**** Possible New Speaker ****

IRGC. It is no surprise that my noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is no surprise that my noble friend raises the issue and I know he has raised it in this House and he has raised it in this House and in the House of Commons and as I have said I cannot comment on prescription decisions and the House will be aware of the concerns long before these operations of the rest of Iranian nationals and the of Iranian nationals and the different arms of the state in the different arms of the state in the UK putting people's safety at risk on UK soil and we are undertaking continuously security assessments that will be updated and we will that will be updated and we will continue to resolve action and keep the House updated as soon as the House updated as soon as possible.

This may not be helpful at possible. This may not be helpful at this time, but the review that is undertaken is completed, and will be published in short or and there will be a response for the government and that will cover some of the issues my noble friend mentioned to date. Counterterrorism described it as an important tool and we will not shy away from it, but we are waiting for that review to give factual that review to give factual information to make decisions at the earliest opportunity.
20:05
20:07
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I am grateful for the questions and I would like to confirm it is not in the interest at the moment for the government, security services or police to give further information about the target of this particular potential plot. I cannot comment on the issues the noble Lady mentioned in that case, but rest assured and I commit this to the House that when I'm able to do so I will, but at this stage I'm not able to do so.

I hope I cover the point about prescription in order to other colleagues, but for the benefit of the doubt, it is something to keep under review, but if and when any prescription to any nation or any state happens, it will happen immediately and not be trailed in the House for reasons we wish to maintain. I take to the noble Baroness the fact that the regime, foreign regime, particularly relates to Iran and operates from July the first and on the fourth of March we said the whole estate including intelligence services, the IRGC, and other organisations will be placed in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence regime and that sends out a clear signal as we know the noble lady looks at the activities of the Iranian state.

We also said in the Liberal Democrat frontbenchers we have judged sanctions are vital to deterring and disrupting threats and we have put in place sanctions and the crime agency will look at pursuing assets where criminal activity is in place. The noble Baroness mentioned immigration for visas and we are undertaking works to consider new ways of looking at Immigration Rules as we focus on taking action against those who promote Iranian interference in the UK which targets and undermine safety interests of our country.

We have applied robustly Immigration Rules to protect it UK national security and we will not hesitate to block and stop completely applications who we charge through security and intelligence agencies people deemed to be of threat to our security. We have through a range of security. We have through a range of cases used dozens of cases to protect the country from state threats and will not hesitate to use that further. We keep that under review and the noble Lady often review and the noble Lady often presses me to confirm further and I presses me to confirm further and I understand why and I can give the answers I have given and I will update her and the House on matters update her and the House on matters when I can.

when I can. There is just one aspect of the array of measures that the UK authorities need to take to protect British citizens from the maligned impact of Iran. Does the noble Lord of the Minister share my concern the Charity Commission is being too slow in investigating the growing number of Iran linked charities? Can he work across government to do whatever it takes to support them, to cajole them, and if necessary to threaten the organisation with reform unless it can move faster

**** Possible New Speaker ****

against a real and credible threat? I am grateful and I reassure the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful and I reassure the noble Lord it is not just a British citizens, but any citizen in the United Kingdom who faces threats United Kingdom who faces threats from a regime has the protection of from a regime has the protection of the security services and it is the security services and it is important we do that. He has raised this before with myself in relation to the Charity Commission and I to the Charity Commission and I share concerns he has around the centres in the UK and maligned centres in the UK and maligned influence they may have on our society and individuals in the society and individuals in the United Kingdom.

The Charity Commission is taking enquiries into the Islamic centre of England and the Islamic centre of England and the charitable trust and the Home Office is tracking closely the Office is tracking closely the progress of those investigations. The Charity Commission said taking this matter seriously and I this matter seriously and I understand and I know that they are trying to examine robustly and make referrals to other agencies whether appropriate. I will follow the intervention and make that marker intervention and make that marker with the Charity Commission, but with the Charity Commission, but essentially I hope he can accept the case is made and the Charity Commission on that case shares the Commission on that case shares the concern and I hope we have speedy resolutions.

resolutions.
20:12
20:14
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I welcome my noble friend to the House and it is my first opportunity to answer a question since they joined the House. It is important to keep these matters under review and in response to early questions we are doing that, and as a result of the incident on the third of May, the security incidents are making further assessments and we are updating those to ensure we can make an up-to-date assessment and we will update the House as sooner we can on the outcome of the assessment.

As I said this is an ongoing investigation and we can't get to the end of the investigation and take specific action accordingly. But I do and I have said the status of prescription of any organisation is being examined by Jonathan Hall KC. The reason it is taking place is that in the past a lot of threats have been from organised groups or individuals, but not from state backed terrorist threats. We have Jonathan Hall giving advice to government on how we approach prescription for organisations that might be linked.

That review is due shortly and we intend to publish it shortly and we hope to publish the government response at the same time. I hope the noble Baroness would be as patient as she can in relation to what I said because we relation to what I said because we will take action on resolving how we commissioned Jonathan Hall and we commissioned Jonathan Hall and we want to have results of the want to have results of the deliberation and response to it so we can advise the government as best we can advise the government as best Festival I'd like to congratulate our security forces and thank them for their superb job in stopping these terrorists in their tracks -- first of all.

We are a liberal democracy. We enjoy huge freedom in this country. We also respect diversity, we respected and we protect it, but unfortunately there are certain regimes that are totally opposite to our way of thinking. They have no respect for diversity, no respect for women, and we have to make it very clear that anyone who comes to disturb our way of life will not be tolerated. They will be totally zero toleration to any act of terrorism against any British

**** Possible New Speaker ****

citizen. The Noble Lord is absolutely correct. The first duty of government is to protect its citizens and to protect citizens who are residing from other countries in this country in legal and appropriate ways. And that is a key appropriate ways. And that is a key element of the work that goes on day in day out from the security in day out from the security services and the police forces across the country from the counterterrorism units and our counterterrorism units and our officials in the Home Office stop and that's why we wanted to both reassure the House by putting the statement forward and the House of Commons first and now in this House Commons first and now in this House to show that action was taken last week because there will be speculation about why and what has happened.

We want to try and indicate that we have taken determined action, but as it's an determined action, but as it's an ongoing investigation, until it's resolved, we can't give full details
20:17
20:18
Lord Cryer Portrait Lord Cryer (Labour)
-
-
Question for short debate, steps being taken to eliminate anti- Semitism on university campuses. Lord Cryer.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I'm very pleased to have been able to secure this have been able to secure this important debate. I mean important because anti-Semitism, I think this because anti-Semitism, I think this is beyond dispute, anti-Semitism has been rocketing in recent years. Not just in this country but across many just in this country but across many parts of the globe, but pertinently to this debate across this country to this debate across this country and across certain educational institutions.

Sadly on a personal note, the situation was certainly made infinitely worse by the former made infinitely worse by the former leadership of my own party. Who leadership of my own party. Who effectively invited racists into the ranks of the Labour Party, then protected them. And again on a protected them. And again on a personal note, I'm very pleased to be here with the noble Baroness Baroness Berger. She and I were part of the other House for a long time of the other House for a long time and we saw a titanic amount of abuse and threats which she received, very often from Labour Party members very sadly.

I was born into the Labour Party. And I will die in it. Not just yet, but one day I will die in it. But honestly, I joined the Labour Party when Jim Callan was Prime Minister, gives you some idea, and the five years of that period of escalating anti-Semitism in our ranks was by far and away the worst I experienced as a Labour Party member. Now a group in about as many first it, came from a very antiracist background but I grew up in a world in which I think there was a general belief, this was in the '60s and 70s, that anti-Semitism had been dealt with when the guns fell silent in 1945.

How wrong can you be? In December 24, the community Security trust report, and by the way and might add, if any Noble Lords unfamiliar with the work of the community Security trust CST, read their reports, look at their website. It's one of the most important if not the most important antiracist organisation in the country and this maintained that quite unique position really in antiracist research for many decades. The CST report, the latest report on campus anti-Semitism found Incidents on campuses during the previous two academic years, saving 2022 to 2024.

The Union of Jewish Students, which also does much good research in this area, recorded a staggering 413% increase in anti- Semitic incidents from the academic Semitic incidents from the academic year 2022 /23 to 23/24 with three Matt 23 incidents in the first year, 322 in the second year, that's a staggering rise and give some idea of the momentous challenge that we are facing in this country. The stand with us report, with which my Noble Friend is intimately acquainted, which was launched I think this morning, covered in the press if anybody wants to read up on it, it was covered in the press and various newspapers and media outlets, the stand with us report looks at individual Jewish student experiences and student voices, and page after page of the report launched this morning is littered with examples of loud and virulent support for Hamas and Hezbollah, and it's worth bearing in mind because this often gets lost in the debate, both Hamas and Hezbollah are prescribed as terrorist organisations, and expressing support for prescribed terrorist organisations should be met with the full force of the law because it constitutes a criminal action.

Just to give if you examples from the stand with us report, at Queen Mary University, I mentioned Queen Mary because it happens to be probably about a mile from the banter with my old constituency of Leyton & Wanstead in East London. Some students decided quite reasonably to students decided quite reasonably to hold a silent vigil on 7 November... Sorry, seventh of October 2024, so to mark the year anniversary since the massacres and mass rape, torture and abductions in southern Israel the year before.

Because what followed was that the silent vigil, quite a small group, was surrounded by hundreds of students and probably people who weren't students, screaming and shouting slogans, threatening, engaging in threatening behaviour. Universities security staff then removed not the aggressors but the students engaging in a silent protest to mark the anniversary. At Birmingham University a similar vigil was planned but university authorities wouldn't even give the virtual permission to go ahead. -- Vigil, so it had to be moved to a local synagogue where people were followed and again threatened industry and outside the synagogue.

And Jewish student, there are many individual Jewish students bearing witness in the report, but another Jewish student who happened to be at University College London reported feeling unable to attend lectures And intimidation. That's a fairly extraordinary step in anybody's university career to not be able to attend lectures and seminars. Example after example across many universities in this country, including threats, intimidation, including physical attacks of Jewish students, being ostracised by other students while in many cases university authorities just stand idly by or actually sort of vaguely tacitly site with the aggressors.

Now that rising anti-Semitism on campuses did not happen, did not occur out of a clear blue sky. There are certain organisations, malign organisations who are engaging in encouraging anti-Semitism, whipping it up and praying on relatively young minds. I will give a couple of examples to get one or two things off my chest. I give the example. off my chest. I give the example. The War coalition. It's not. The War coalition any more. I suspect because they put the word coalition and there is an active irony and then take it out.

Stop the war springs to mind because within two days of the barbarous attacks on southern Israel on 7 October, I'm talking about on 9 October, so two days later, stop the war outside the Israeli embassy in London taking part in a protest. Now what... This is before the IDF were even really be thinking about their response. It was hours after the massacre had stopped. Why would anybody engage in a protest outside the Israeli embassy just after 1,200 Israelis had been murdered? And to mass had engaged in rape torture, and a my abduction.

My senses because they were engaging in racial hatred against Jewish people, and stop the war by the way has strong links to has planned Hamas and therefore I feel fairly sure is -- Iran as well, the clerical fascist of Tehran. Just to mention stop the War was set up in 2003, in the run-up to Iraq war. I voted against the Iraq war. I was a Labour MP at the time as I was into a short time ago. I voted against the Iraq war, probably seven times as well as marching against it and speaking against it.

I've never had any link with stop the war and never will. They're not to be outdone, the Palestine Solidarity campaign, they applied for a licence to have a march in London on 7 October. The attack on southern Israel started I think about 6: 30 in the morning. Within a few hours, that means the PSE had applied to Metropolitan Police for a licence that they could have a march in central London. Now again, why would you do that unless you are intent on whipping up racial hatred against Jewish people? It's my view, a personal view, that membership of any Democratic party frankly is incompatible with membership.

The War or the PSC. That may sound like largely it's directed at members of parties on the centre or centre-left like my own party, Liberal Democrats, Greens, they have to say when I marched in London against the Iraq war all those years ago 2003, I did see a banner, and I thought at the time I might be imagining it, but honestly it actually said Conservatives against the war. So it's not just a left group who oppose the war. Underneath that banner were some quite nervous - looking people, but they were there to express their view, and I congratulate them for having the backbone for doing that.

I just have a couple of fine points I want to make to my Noble Friend because I'm almost out of time. There are two requests I've got for the Minister, which I will hope she will take on board. The first request is I'm certainly convinced that the government should look at the possibility of holding an enquiry into campus anti-Semitism. I think that that would be an important step towards combating it. And perhaps we could also examine the possibility in the Department of education of perhaps expanding the section of the National Curriculum which covers the Holocaust.

And I say that because the Holocaust and the Second World War is now slipping out of memory and into history, and therefore it makes it all the more important that we stamp on the collective consciousness of future generations exactly what horror happened. And I would just finish with that because I know I am out of time. We are certainly seeing a very sharp widespread increase in anti- Semitism, and my fear is unless we can take concrete steps to counter this on campuses and in institutions of education, some of those institutions could turn into incubators for virulent anti- Semitism.
20:29
Lord Leigh of Hurley Portrait Lord Leigh of Hurley (Conservative)
-
-
Can I congratulate and thank the neighbour Lord Cryer for instigating this debate and in particular congratulate him on that excellent opening speech? And pay tribute all he has done in this area. I refer galore chips to various Jewish community organisations were serve as a volunteer, who have contributed to my thoughts and in particular the Council of Christians and Jews. Today the stand with us report was issued, which confirms that the terrible state we have come to wear high levels of anti-Semitic abuse seem now to be normal on campus.

Anti-Semitism on campus is not new. It was there when I was a student in the late '70s and early 80s but has now grown to be a very worrying level, such that Jewish students are rightly frightened to go to British university. It's not just those who are perpetrating attacks. It's A- level of ignorance and hate on campus which is so depressing. If only 33% of students describe Hamas attack as terrorism, we know we are in trouble. The implication is that 67% do not see Hamas as terrorists.

I was at that semi students are so misinformed such that as Lord Cryer mentioned, the CST anti-Semitic incidents report rose 413% from one year to another? I appreciate only some quartermillion Jewish people in the country of some 70 million, many if not most have never met a Jewish person or their story. The root of the problem are in my opinion or may well be found in schools where of course most university students have recently left, and we've seen evidence of teachers in what subgroups refer to sinus Nazis, and members of officials clearing food from Israeli supermarkets and filming themselves doing it and circulating those films.

The energy is peak by with anti-Israel resolutions and it's in schools where the prejudice can start and Are they talking to them about this? We have seen tough action. No one including me likes the actions, but they showed indecisive determination to deal with anti-Semitism. The Union of Jewish Students pointed out that campuses have become an increasingly hostile environment for Jewish students. I visited Cambridge University to see the camps and tents outside of King's College where they cry for the elimination of the Jewish people in Israel was made repeatedly.

It is the rules of victims and perpetrators are reversed. The government knows this but do they act? Keir Starmer gave a speech to the Holocaust education trust and acknowledged anti-Semitism on campus and promised to deal with it. The Minister made a seminal speech in the same month to the UK universities conference in Redding and covered every aspect of it including freedom of speech, but there was nothing about anti- Semitism. Has she read the speech that was delivered to the largely Jewish audience? There will be joined up government action.

They need to be reminded about adopting the definition and they need to understand that undue hatred of Israel is anti-Semitic. We need to that they produce guidance which ensures universities intervene so that they carry out the duty of care. I know the Minister has great experience in the sector and has for many years, so will she commit personally to engage and talk to universities in a clear and public way which is disclosed to us all so we can see what is being demanded? If they do not apply the appropriate penalties and actions they will be imposed as had been promised.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I spoke on this very topic for the first time in this House in 2007. Even more sadly we have marked 80 years since the liberation and they have emerged with the same they have emerged with the same hatreds and moral inversions. The victims have been painted as killers victims have been painted as killers and it is a tragedy. 18 student bodies have decided to support the legal action to decriminalise Hamas. St Antony's College in Oxford St Antony's College in Oxford chooses to host an act whose theme is the underlying problem of the West is the stratification of the Holocaust at the expense of colonialism.

The lecturers and the union should be supporting affected union should be supporting affected students of the aggressors. The students of the aggressors. The local branch voted for a motion that local branch voted for a motion that looked at it until victory. It is not the problem but the excuse for perpetrated Uden's and the situation is deteriorating and no action has been taken. I have little faith in enquiries. We know what the situation is and we know what the remedies might be and we need the increment a and enforcement.

No more handwringing or robotic statements from robotic chancellors. There is no place for anti-Palestinian discrimination, anti-Semitism or hate directed towards any faith- based nationality or faith group. Dehumanisation of Jewish students has become so deeply embedded that people feel no shame in excluding Jewish students from gatherings, mocking them by reverting to centuries-old slurs and turning the Holocaust against them. Students in London have seen swastikas carved in front of them. At UCL, Jewish students were told that Israel killed their own people, the widespread reference to the lie that the October seventh massacre was staged to provoke a war against Gaza, or just staged.

The problem is the failure to take action as they could rely on the protection of harassment, Public Order Act, malicious Communications Act, Terrorism Act, Equality Act, remembering freedom of speech ends where hate speech and incitement to violence start. It would at least help student societies and speakers be heard and would not open the door to Holocaust denial because other laws do that. It is impossible to imagine that sanctions would not be imposed where the sanctions of this hateful action of black or other ethnic minorities.

The government and offers the students should not have -- hesitate to punish students who behave like this and they should be expelled or suspended. University funding of student union should be leverage to ensure they leave the behaviour. The root of the behaviour is religious teaching, but Jews are is religious teaching, but Jews are inferior, and it demonstrates the failure Holocaust education that focuses on dead Jews as a feature of focuses on dead Jews as a feature of the past and has nothing to say about the long history of anti- Semitism and the focus of anti- Semitism and the focus of anti- Semitism today, namely the state of Semitism today, namely the state of Israel as Lord John Sachs pointed out.

Israel is today's variation of anti-Semitism and that is what students have not realised and they students have not realised and they need education from school up and they need to national and government disapproval.
20:37
Lord Mann Portrait Lord Mann (Labour)
-
-
Not least as the government appointed adviser on anti-Semitism. I have met every single university in the UK in the last three years. I have met Jewish students from virtually all of the 85 jury societies across our universities. I have been in with Jewish students to a very significant number of universities. I've met, discussed, with pre-student applicants from a vast array of schools applying for university. There is a danger.

The danger is that Parliament and government does not do what Lord Cryer asked in his debate, to discuss steps being taken and what should be done about anti-Semitism, but spends his time outlining the problem. I have spent 40 years dealing with anti-Semitism in University and I could go through chapter and verse including virtually every single incident in recent years, the most serious of which I have usually been involved in helping to sort out.

But we need to remember two things. The first is what happens in the United States in one week is worse than what happens in one year in the UK in the universities. That is a factual statement. It is not an exaggeration and therefore there are many things and many problems and I get enough of this nonsense directed against myself criminally and noncriminal a day in and day out, and I listen, hear and feel what Jewish students in this country, academics and other staff are saying, but also get a lot of things right.

The biggest difference between the UK US is we have one unified Jewish student body. The fact that I rely on the facts of Union of Jewish Students with 85 jury societies, and I can tell you that organisation is dramatically stronger, braver, better organised, better trained, than it was five years ago, 10 years ago, 15 years ago, 20 years ago, 40 years ago, far better. That is a huge success story for the Jewish community. In a terrible and traumatic to years in this country, the Union of Jewish Students is a beacon of what can be achieved.

Of course there are difficulties, their success in holding back universities and getting their way in every single university leadership at the table, eloquently, in detail, putting their case and often getting results should not be overlooked in this. What should be done is we have no need for more reports, I agree with Baroness Deech, we don't need more reports, a detailed report that has been with government for two years, many of it not yet actioned. years, many of it not yet actioned.

A lot is in their. In there. With money waiting to be spent in training in universities. Desperately needed, but good quality training as well. If government does what is needed, and gives a lead and empowers a Jewish student and also recognises the biggest single factor this academic year has in fact been what is happening to academic staff, Jewish staff, their isolation, ostracised Asian, that is hardly ever talked about because they don't have an organisation to come through to talk to.

The biggest single danger at the current time and we are getting nowhere near it. Give money and backing to those doing the work. Listen to them, go through work. Listen to them, go through them, and when they are doing well as well as saying this is terrible, they are saying well done, well they are saying well done, well done, well done. We are with you, Jewish students, we are with the you -- Union of Jewish Students.
20:42
Lord Gold Portrait Lord Gold (Conservative)
-
-
It is an honour to follow a powerful statement. The increased regularity, we hear alarming accounts of increased anti-Semitic acts occurring at our university after what might be happening in Gaza and it takes very little analysis to realise that into many cases this concern is an excuse for outright anti-Semitism. It is old- fashioned due hazing of the worst kind and it must be stopped. The key issue for me is to understand the steps being taken to eliminate steps being taken to eliminate anti-Semitism from university campus.

Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of academic life, but should never be a shill for hatred. Universities must strike a careful balance, amazing free expression while standing firmly against anti- Semitism in all its forms. When lecturers all students across the line, there must be real consequences, disciplinary action must not just be robust, but also send a clear message. Anti-Semitism will not be tolerated. Suggesting as happened in one university that a swastika carved into a desk was probably an ancient Hindu symbol or failing to take action when a Jewish students personal, cultural and spiritual possessions were thrown onto the floor of their apartment as happened at St Andrews University is wholly unacceptable.

Universities must step up and take action. We know that over 200 institutions adopted the IHRA defamation of anti-Semitism, but adoption alone is not enough. Too often it is symbolic, inconsistently applied or ignored. The CST is reporting a 117% rise in anti-Semitic incidents over the last two academic years. These are not just numbers. They represent Jewish students facing real fear and exclusion in what should be safe spaces for learning. The CST report found these incidents occurred online, on campus and in some cases perpetrated by staff or student union officers.

Jewish students deserve better. Universities must implement the definition meaningfully if proper training, swift disciplinary process and independent complaints procedures that ensures students feel seen and supported and safe. The government has taken action writing to universities and stressing the use of police referrals, disciplinary measures as these suspensions are necessary. The five-point plan and propose tackling anti-Semitism seal is welcome as an initiative, but as my noble friend said, it is not enough.

Universities and government recognise that this is to be applauded. Leadership must come from the top of every university. The Prime Minister said vice chancellors must take personal responsibility for protecting Jewish students. I ask the following question. What steps of the government taking to ensure meaningful implementation of What assessment has been made of the What assessment has been made of the increase in incidents since October 2023? Will the government consider 2023? Will the government consider linking higher education funding to concrete action against anti- Semitism? And finally, what the Semitism? And finally, what the government withdraw thesis from government withdraw thesis from international students for inciting racial hatred? We must ensure that our universities are places of our universities are places of light, not hate.

Jewish students should never be left to walk alone.
20:47
Baroness Berger Portrait Baroness Berger (Labour)
-
-
Can I command my Noble Friend Lord Cryer for securing this important debate and for his powerful and meaningful messages of solidarity and advocacy for the Jewish community? I declare an interest as a member of the advisory Council of the Union of Jewish Students, UJS which is the voice of nearly 10,000 Jewish students across the UK, a body that I proudly joined as a student. And it was just over 20 years ago that I gave evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee in the other place about my personal experiences of anti-Semitism as a student on campus, and here we are discussing these very same issues.

I won't repeat the statistics. Jewish students across the country today are reporting sustained levels of abuse, intimidation, and marginalisation on campus. We have also seen some violent attacks, and this we have never seen before. Since launching the service in October 2023, in just 19 months, UJS 24-hour a day seven days a week welfare support lines have received nearly 2,000 phone calls from Jewish students in need. We've not only seen an increase in incidents but also witnessing an atmosphere where Jewish students feel the need to choose a different walk walk through campus or to avoid specific spaces or even to miss certain lectures.

A campus life where some students do not feel they can fully engage due to fear of hatred or attack is one that we must urgently address. And yet I am pleased to learn that Jewish students pride is at an all- time high. For the vast majority of Jewish students, Jewish life rather than Jewish strife is defining their campus experiences with UJS engaging over 8,000 Jewish students in activities over the past year. Interfaith events have taken place on numerous campuses, ensuring that collaboration is still able to prevail.

And UJS has provided anti- Semitism awareness training to over 5,000 student leaders and University staff and students. The resilience of Jewish students was born in part out of a necessity to create safe supportive spaces in response to that exclusion and hostility that they have faced elsewhere. These safe spaces are there thanks to the outstanding work of UJS students and the volunteer led Jewish societies up and down the country. And since October 7, UJS has been living up to the mantra of my dear friend, the late former president Alan Sennett who said that more Jewish students should be doing more Jewish things.

This is how the history books will remember this period of campus life, not as one framed by the hatred Jewish students are experiencing but by a period framed in the pride they have shown that their Judaism, no matter how they choose to live and express it. It is unacceptable to expect Jewish students to be constantly vigilant and to report incidents of anti-Jewish hatred while institutions continuously fail to act. Universities, colleges and student unions must take proactive steps to meet their duty of care, and if universities continue to be slow to act or in some cases refuse to act, the consequences will be that those campuses will become Jewish free.

I have already had parents in this country talking about a number of no-go university campuses for their children, and this is a reality I think we could all agree is abhorrent. It is commendable that the government committed £7 million to fighting anti-Semitism in our schools and universities, but other than a small percentage, this funding is still yet to be allocated to those on the frontline fighting anti-Semitism and representing the interests of Jewish students Foster and I asked my Noble Friend if she can please confirm when the support will be made available? University leaders must also not be allowed to sit idly by while this the oldest form of hatred is allowed to continue in their institutions and I ask my Noble institutions and I ask my Noble Friend when will the government convene University leaders together with UJS to compel them to act with UJS to compel them to act decisively and proactively against anti-Jewish racism on their campuses? This is not just a matter campuses? This is not just a matter of security.

Jewish students being able to enjoy the student experience just the same as all of their peers just the same as all of their peers as a matter of justice, equality and the fundamental right to feel safe and flourish in higher and further education. education.
20:52
Baroness Altmann Portrait Baroness Altmann (Non-affiliated)
-
-
I declare my interests in University, Union of Jewish Students, Jewish leadership Council, the chief rabbi's advisory board, and I would like to congratulate the noble Lord Cryer, both for having this debate and for his excellent introduction. My Lords, the integrity and inclusivity of higher education in this country is under threat. UK universities are no longer feeling like safe places. Or inclusive spaces for the 9,000 Jewish students on our campuses. They are reporting sustained levels of abuse, intimidation, and marginalisation.

We have heard from the stand with us report, from CST, from many organisations just how serious this issue is. Jewish students are continuously facing hostility, and they are being blamed for the Israeli government's actions, even when many of them don't necessarily support the Israeli government itself. They have, it seems, no right of free speech, and even as the Noble Lord Lord Cryer suggested, no right to silent protest either. They are facing the glorification of terrorism by not just student union officers or fellow students but by academic staff as well.

It feels as if Islamist groups have infiltrated our universities at all levels. They seem to be working to normalise support for terror. Does the noble lady the Minister share my concerns at attempts supported by British students at universities across the country to de-prescribe Hamas, including students at leading Russell group universities such as UCL, Edinburgh, and LSE? To Jewish students and most Jews, the suggestion that Hamas is not a terrorist group is truly frightening. After the actions that are perpetrated, beheading, rape, kidnapping, and ongoing terror, it is I believe the duty of many of our universities to wake up to the threats that are all around them.

With the noble Lady consider -- would the noble Lady consider fines for those that tolerate anti- Semitism, removing funding from those who are peddling hate? Rising anti-Semitism is rarely the loan or last expression of tolerance in our, in any society. But I also am grateful to many Noble Lords who are supporting this debate tonight and to support the cause of fighting anti-Semitism on our campuses. And I thank the noble Lady and the government for taking seriously this government for taking seriously this issue.

As Lord Sacks said, choose cannot fight anti-Semitism alone -- cannot fight anti-Semitism alone -- choose. The victim cannot cure the crime. crime.
20:55
Lord Turnberg Portrait Lord Turnberg (Labour)
-
-
I too would like to thank the Noble Lord Lord Cryer for introducing this debate and for giving such a wonderful opening address. Conor Cruise O'Brien said that anti-Semitism is a light sleeper. Well it was woken with a bang on the morning after the devastating slaughter of men, women and children by Hamas on October 7. When the blame for that act of terror was soon placed on the victims, Israel and the Jewish community. The marches in London and even I'm afraid Amnesty International stated as much on October stated as much on October 7.

No surprise then that university campuses across the country became hotbeds of anti-Semitism and anti- Zionism. The report published today by stand without provides the verbal testimony -- stand without provides the testimony -- with us. It makes for devastating reading. I should declare an interest as a trustee of stand with us. I won't repeat many of the uncomfortable student demos that avoid been heard, save for one. I was targeted not for what I said but for who I am, HU.

Another had a swastika as we've heard make HU. And there are many more descriptions from desperate students. And worst of all was the fact that despite the complaints many students made to the University authorities, they have by and large been ignored or worse, as one University said, there were no further steps or actions related to this matter. It is often said that criticism of Israel is valid, and indeed more than 50% of Israelis are vehemently critical of the government.

That is not anti- Zionism. It only becomes anti- Zionism when it is taken to mean antipathy to the very existence of the state of Israel. The definition of Zionism is simply the desire to support the only Jewish state in the world. And it's far from implying the approval, one or other of the Israeli government's actions. Government in the world is immune to criticism? Even our own? But no matter how badly behaved they are, they don't deny their existence. And on campuses, just as the strong criticism of China's treatment of the Uyghurs has not led to the persecution of Chinese students, nor have American students suffered a backlash from the behaviour of President Trump, unless they happen to be Jewish, so one may ask why is it only Jewish students who suffer? It is hard to escape the conclusion that as Jonathan Sacks said, anti- Zionism is the new anti-Semitism.

So my question to my Noble Friend the Minister is when will a promised meeting between ministers and University vice chancellors take place? What pressure will be brought to bear on them to support the Jewish students and stop there persecution? And will vice chancellors be brought to recognise the calls for equity, diversity and inclusion should in all fairness be applied to all excluded groups, including Jewish students? including Jewish students?
20:59
21:01
Lord Howarth of Newport Portrait Lord Howarth of Newport (Labour)
-
-
universities are doing. There is deeply concerning increase of anti- Semitism on campuses and what I have found more shocking reports of anti-Semitic behaviour by academics. The security trust reports that academics as well as students have limited understanding of what constitutes anti-Semitism. How can this be so? Some universities have strong and effective procedures for dealing with it and others have been equivocal. Recent efforts from a charity suggest anti-Semitic attitudes and behaviours are based in supposedly elite universities.

There is a problem of aberrant are bigoted academics and vice chancellors who are too scared to face down the campus. There is large rise in anti-Semitic incidents during the period following the during the period following the unspeakable massacre of Jews by Hamas on October 7, 2023, and during the subsequent ferocious and relentless military conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. Emotions have run high on campus, of course. It may be the case that young people have not been taught to make the distinction between legitimate criticism of the policies of Israel and illegitimate slurs against Jews or simply be had been carried away by passion or pro Palestinian rhetoric.

I don't know. What has been happening does strengthen the case made by my noble friend for better education in schools about anti-Semitism and it justifies the recent grant funding for this purpose from the Education Secretary. However fallible some academic leaders maybe it goes against the grain for me to look to government or any agency appointed by government to regulate the internal affairs of universities. I don't like to see the Office for Students tasked with policing academic freedom. It should be the other way around with public intellectuals based in universities articulating the principles that matter, leading public debate, and assisting politicians.

Nigel Faraj Brad Sewell be next Prime Minister. When that great day comes, do we want it to be normal that a government agency will lay down the law to universities in sensitive matters of policy with the power to find them when if disapproves in find them when if disapproves in conduct? We are at a crisis in Western history. The growth of anti-Semitism in universities and elsewhere is one manifestation and the rise of neofascist parties, the Trump Republicans, other parties across Europe is underpinned by a new indifference among young people to democratic values and that is another.

We deplore the attack on academic freedom and the rule of law by the Trump Administration but let's not overlook the attrition of university funding and the justice system by successive administrations in our own country. The collapse of the Western alliance and the global trading system and the suffering and impoverishment that will follow. This will come at the hands of a This will come at the hands of a wicked local has been elected by a democratic process and it leaves us on the edge of an abyss.

First of all, it is the responsibility of universities, all of them, to ensure that they are islands of that they are islands of rationality. We do this by research, teaching, the fearless exchange of teaching, the fearless exchange of ideas can flourish. It will free us of the horror of anti-Semitism. of the horror of anti-Semitism.
21:05
Baroness Foster of Oxton Portrait Baroness Foster of Oxton (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, how did we get here? It's been 19 months since the massacre of Israel and the slaughter of hundreds of men and women. 250 hostages were taken with 59 still held in the underground tunnels of Gaza by Hamas psychopaths and cohorts. On the streets of London and the UK, we have witnessed anti- Semitism on a level I never thought I would see and especially 80 years on since VE day. Islamic extremism is on the increase.

Bullying, harassment, and attacks on Jewish friends and supporters are rife. Intimidation outside synagogues and other meeting places are a daily occurrence. The call for the extermination of all Jews and the destruction of an ally state has been ignored by those elected to protect our very being. It was only a matter of time until it would spill over onto the University campuses. Rent a mob, always predictable. Set up camps and continue to vandalise buildings and attack Jewish students and friends. They do not hesitate to threaten anyone who stands to them.

Some of us here have called upon police and the Home Secretary to intervene but, to no avail. The protests continue, unabated on our streets and on the campuses. At Leeds University, the Jewish chaplain and his family were forced into hiding with threats of rape and murder before leaving the country. It is not only in Leeds. Other world-class universities are as culpable with chancellors, vice chancellors, administrations not lifting a finger to stop the abuse. We have examples outlined in the excellent report which was already mentioned by Stand with Us.

And yet we fund universities to the tune of £24 billion a year. And yet we are expected to turn a blind eye to what expected to turn a blind eye to what is happening. Those in charge have deliberately ignored the fact that they are answerable to ours and to the parents and students who expect the authorities to ensure safeguarding and security is always paramount. The fact that they have aggregated this responsibility should preclude these people from being anywhere near the education system and they should be removed system and they should be removed immediately.

One of the reasons is because they receive millions in overseas funding and don't wish to offend donors, some of whom openly support the actions of terrorists. Let's be absolutely clear. Hamas is the prescribed terrorist group alongside others, being openly supported. It is an illegal and criminal offence to ignore those supporting its actions and I would therefore call upon the Minister to To revoke the visas of foreign students who carry out these acts and to deport them immediately and for those who are British citizens to invoke the full force of the law by removing them from the universities that they attend as is happening in the USA.

And finally, with rights come responsibilities and those are fantastic universities brought into disrepute and it should not be allowed to do so. Mixed messages on Israel do not help and so it is time the government stopped pussyfooting around and put a stop to this. History has ways of repeating itself. In this case, that cannot be allowed to happen. cannot be allowed to happen.
21:10
Lord Mitchell Portrait Lord Mitchell (Labour)
-
-
A headline in 'The Times Mike' States Anti-Semitism Is Getting Out Of Control. It is hardly news. It has been used for many years but events in Gaza have made what was already a bad situation even more toxic and often terrifying. I speak with some experience. I was the chair and financial contributor to an organisation and our remit was to bring Muslim and Jewish students into positive social contact with each other and we had some success.

We were a joint Muslim and Jewish organisation and the two CEOs were from both communities and were jointly financed by Muslim and Jewish private sources and typically four Jewish and four Muslim peers would visit campuses together. We get the brief. The references to the Middle East. There was nothing that we could do or say that could make any difference. But where we could definitely make a difference was by reference to the common UK experiences and the heritage. I think we made progress.

We have joint social events and we spoke about common worries on campus and issues that were going on with food, halal and kosher, and the nonrecognition of religious holidays by university administrators. Seared into my memory was when Jewish women, sorry, one Muslim woman, who had a hijab and said, "I do not understand why we cannot be friends because of what is happening 2000 miles away. Close I always felt the issue of anti-Semitism on campus it not emanate solely from this but from the laissez-faire attitude and from the chancellors and vice chancellors, to the professors, lecturers, administrators, many of whom were different and they permitted anti-Semitism and indeed Islamophobia to fester unchecked.

Why should it be permitted? Why should grandchildren be subject to abuse and violence because of birth? Just imagine what would happen if we were to substitute the word Jewish with black, gay, trans? There would be a national outcry. And now we will see Indian and Pakistani On campus for what is happening in Kashmir. No need to answer the question but, for the record, it is no. What is happening is anti- Semitism, purely and simply. How do we deal with this problem? The coexistence trust is not enough.

Leaders need to be cajoled into changing their difference and reminded that they have a duty of care to all students. Why should faculties be allowed to commit casual and not so casual racism against the Jewish community and fight tooth and nail to protect fight tooth and nail to protect
21:14
Lord Shinkwin Portrait Lord Shinkwin (Conservative)
-
-
I declare an interest as a past trustee with the Counsel for Christians and Jews. Wonderful interfaith institution and they have great standards and it was established in 1942 as the tragedy of the Holocaust unfolded. Part of the work is on campus. The leadership programme is currently training students across seven UK universities and the CCG is empowering Jewish, Christian, and students of other faiths to be the interfaith presence of tomorrow and since the launch in 2016, more than 18 students have been trained by the CCG to stand up to anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.

-- CCJ. And also to conduct balanced and mutually respectful debate. I applaud them for their courage in what is clearly an increasingly hostile climate. I commend the union of the students for their work and also the students who contributed testimonies to the Stand with Us Report Which Was Already Mentioned by Other Noble Lords. I Commend Them for Their Courage and Their Admirable forbearance in the face of, at best, institutional indifference and, at I commend them for standing up for British values.

The values of tolerance, of inter-faith dialogue and free speech. Those values are absent from the appalling and shocking treatment meted out to those cited in the stand with us report. What is not absent is the vile divisive un-British poison of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood from whence it came. And which like the IRGC as we have already heard earlier today, bizarrely remains unprescribed in the UK. Hamas may not be winning the war in Gaza, but this report shows that there viciously distorted and fundamentally racist propaganda is helping them win the battle of ideas and the battle for hearts and minds on our campuses.

I fear we are letting them do this. The law is being broken as we have already heard in plain sight. While the authorities, the universities and the government might as well have shrugged their shoulders and wrung their hands. Surely this report should leave us all holding our heads in our hands. So I close with one question. Unless urgent action is taken, how long does she think it is taken, how long does she think it will be before one of our students is killed for the crime of being Jewish?
21:18
Lord Walney Portrait Lord Walney (Crossbench)
-
-
We have heard many harrowing accounts today, of course antisemitism existed as an issue for millennia, long before the mass atrocities on 7 October and it is a privilege to be in the presence today of so many people who literally dedicated their lives and had to do that to fight anti- Semitism, let me add my praise and love and respect for the Union of Jewish students. It was amazing to work with them back in the day when amongst the many things they were doing they were supporting one particularly talented young student to be elected onto the block of 12 I think it was.

Baroness Berger he sits on these benches today but it they clearly have an even harder job today with what is happening. Of course antisemitism existed long before her masses atrocities, but it is deeply disturbing that the extremist ideology of those hateful terrorists has been seemingly so willingly adopted by many students at our country's universities. The examples of anti-Semitism identified by today's report by stand with us UK are notable both for their volume and for their consistency.

Let me briefly share a couple more examples. A student at Queen Marie University of London shouted out as they moved past the library encompass -- in front of campus utility, students filmed themselves as they yelled there as a Zionist therefore you need to shout as loud as possible. An Israeli flag was burned at a student event arranged by Jewish and Israeli societies, it was supposed to be a moment of solidarity and celebration for young adults traumatised by the events of 7 October, it was turned into the opposite of that.

As others have said, it is the antisemitism by university staff which is the most shocking thing here. Consider the example of the Professor University of Leeds posted on their personal social media account that the local Jewish society is violently Zionist bacterial and the, and claimed that there isthe Zionists on campus, not now or ever. I believe no disciplinary action according to the report was taken after the post had been deleted. Can you imagine that happening if it had been a white supremacist who had revealed themselves? Of course it wouldn't.

Of course it wouldn't happen but it slips by and is allowed, university life is allowed as if nothing has happened. When university administrator failed to enforce adequate sanctions and some university staff even feel emboldened to participate in this festival of hate, is it any surprise that anti-Jewish racism and intolerance is spread so widely among the student body? Jews I'm afraid feel, many feel they are being sent an unmistakable message, you are not welcome here on campus.

It is hard not to escape the echoes of a period in the 1930s led to the darkest moment in human history. I
21:23
Baroness Ludford Portrait Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
implore the government to read carefully the recommendations from carefully the recommendations from the stand with us UK report and those that have been made over the years by the antisemitism policy trust have been dedicated in this area for many years. As a democracy founded on the principles of founded on the principles of equality and freedom of religion we can ill afford to allow this crisis can ill afford to allow this crisis can ill afford to allow this crisis I will quickly soon turned to the topic of this vital debate for which I thank Lord Cryer, but I hope noble I thank Lord Cryer, but I hope noble Lords will indulge me in a reference to our late Lord Etherton who sad to our late Lord Etherton who sad death that only 73 with announced death that only 73 with announced today by the Lord Speaker.

Joshua Rosenberg reports that when Lord Etherton gave a lecture at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Hebrew University of Jerusalem in confidence, fluent Hebrew he told the story of his grandparents arriving in the East End of London from the pale of settlement in Russia during the early years of the 20th century only to find more anti-Semitism in Britain. Such that my paternal great uncle persuaded , his great-grandparents he added would have been double founded to see him deliver a lecture in Israel is the second most senior judge in England and.

So we have had some great progress in our country and society which makes it actually even more shocking that following the horrendous terrorist attack 7 October perpetrated against Israeli victims by Hamas a dramatic further increase in anti-Semitic incidents was seen in the UK as well as was seen in the UK as well as elsewhere. We have heard the figures tonight from Lord Cryer and others recorded by the Union of Jewish students, the Community Security Trust and the report today from stand with us UK, all of them very valuable.

Some of the anti-Semitic behaviour was associated with pro- Palestinian marches with one of the most common forms of anti-Semitic harassment being students experiencing intimidation around protest events on campus. Expressions of support for Hamas and other prescribed terrors organisation has been routine with students being told, Hamas had their reasons. If I was Palestinian I would join Hamas. And there isfor Zionists on campus, not now, not ever. Some were even told, your people should not be alive.

I think by your people they did not mean Israelis, they meant Jews. There has been some criticism of the definition and examples of anti- Semitism produced by the International Holocaust remembrance. The Jerusalem declaration was drafted in response. With the assertion that the IH Aro definition was quote, unclear in key respects and widely open to different interpretations and it caused confusion and generated controversy. Which they claimed we can to the fight against anti-Semitism. This declaration which has academics in UK universities as signatories asserts that neither criticising or opposing Zionism as a form of nationalism nor supporting arrangement that are called full equality to all inhabitants between the river and the sea are anti- Semitic.

Well that is already arguable, but when marches shout quote, from the river to the sea Palestine shall be free, this is not some calm academic dialogue about constitutional arrangements. It's an intimidating call for the destruction of the state of Israel. The IRA definition structure -- stresses that quote criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic. Giving ample scope for criticism of any current government or its actions. So the bottom-line is that freedom of expression is not a justification for harassment and all points of view should be able to be expressed even when there is strong political disagreement relating to Israel and the Middle East.

I conclude by asking the noble Lord the Minister to tell us whether the result of her discussion with vice chancellors is going to result in serious and determined action to eradicate anti-Semitism on campuses while championing academic freedom including in discussing Israel and the Middle East and Gaza, which I believe is absolutely possible.
21:27
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Portrait Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative)
-
-
If you were a student attending Bristol University on 20 March this year I pick a date more or less at random, you would have had the usual corner Copia of choices as to how to spend your evening. These were just a few of your options. You could have attended French societies games night and pub crawl, meeting at the steam pub at 7 o'clock. Or the Christian union was holding a prayer hour at the Bristol International student centre and then the annual general meeting at Alma church at 6 o'clock.

Or the Jewish society was holding a film screening at 630 at the J Soc house. But unless you knew where that is you wouldn't have known where to go. That's because addresses from the meetings of the Jewish society, unlike those other societies, and groups, are not publicised in advance. You won't find the address on the website of the student union or on Instagram as you would all the other locations. Instead, to get the address of the Jewish society meeting, you would need to be on a private by invitation only WhatsApped group.

Private so that the member of the Jewish society know who is coming, not because they are doing anything nefarious, they were watching a film. But simply because they want to be safe. Yes, this is life as a Jewish student at our universities in 2025, addresses for meetings passed around on a need-to-know basis. I have seen that done before when I was at university, but not at university I attended, I saw it when I travelled to the -- as a student to visit Jewish students and dissidents, they were called refuseniks, in the former Soviet Union.

They also passed around the addresses where they were going to meet on a need-to-know basis. Moscow University 1988 Bristol University 20 1988 Bristol University 2025. So while I'm grateful to Lord Cryer for initiating this debate with a very fine speech and we've had many good speeches, I'm afraid we've had many of these points before. Here we are with the situation getting worse and not better. I know we've had these points before because my first speech in the South as a minister was in Grand Committee replying to a debate on the same topic, while on one footing it's now better that we are doing it in the chamber and not in Grand Committee I would far rather that we didn't need to have the debate at all.

As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, we do need this debate because as today's stand with us report makes clear, the position faced by Jewish students at UK universities is getting worse and not better. University Jewish chaplaincy provides excellent pastoral care, the University of Jewish students does fantastic work, but they are literally on the frontline day in literally on the frontline day in A Jewish student sees a banner, no Zionists on campus, she will read it as no Jews on campus because the overwhelming majority of Jews in this country and therefore the overwhelming majority of Jewish students as well, are Zionists.

They believe as I do in the right of Jewish self-determination which is Lord Turnberg reminded us is the only thing that Zionism actually means. When Jewish students have to run the gauntlet of a protest camp as they did at Cambridge and they see University authority is doing absolutely nothing for far too long, they will draw the obvious conclusion. If you allow me a very short digression what really annoyed me about that protest camp at Cambridge is the sheer ignorance on display, they thought they were being clever by having a big sign in Hebrew and English with the famous words from Deuteronomy 1620, justice words from Deuteronomy 1620, justice They did not the second half of the same verse which carries, "That you may live and possess the land which the Lord your God is giving to you." Let me be clear, denying Jewish students the right to publicly identify as Zionists but it is part of their identity for many of them as a form of religious cultural intimidation and is probably illegal but it shouldn't be a question of legal compulsion or demanding special treatment and I would like to see a day when Jewish societies can publicise the addresses for their meetings in the same way that everyone else does.

It boils down to this. University where Jewish students are either not welcome or made to feel that they are not welcome is an institution which has entirely forfeited the right to call itself University.
21:32
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
I declare my interest as a member

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I declare my interest as a member of the UJS Advisory Council. I should have done so sooner.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should have done so sooner. I begin by thanking Lord Cryer for securing the debate and bringing the attention of the House back to the attention of the House back to the critical issue of anti-Semitism on university campuses. As others on university campuses. As others have reference, the Security trust have reference, the Security trust report and anti-Semitism on campus was published at the end of last year and it sets out the scale of year and it sets out the scale of this issue and let me say clearly that the government condemns anti- Semitism in the strongest possible Semitism in the strongest possible terms.

More importantly, we are actively taking steps to prevent and tackle it at university and in all tackle it at university and in all parts of society. In setting the context for the work, it is right context for the work, it is right that I take this opportunity, as others have, to recognise organisations that play a crucial role in supporting students across the country and the Community Security Trust provides essential advice and monitors anti-Semitic incidents and collaborates with universities to ensure a safe environment on campus and the invaluable if shocking and disturbing data helps us understand the evolving picture of anti- Semitism as it affects students at university but Jewish communities up and down the country and across the world and, as several noble Lord including the noble lady made clear, the context in which we speak of anti-Semitism on university campuses is one of anti-Semitism were broadly across our communities.

This is why the £72 million made available over coming years to the community trust, as it has been in recent years, including when I was the Home Secretary, it is an important contribution to the vital work that the CSD does in safeguarding our community sites. As others have done, I would like to pay tribute to the Union of Jewish Students and ensuring that their voices are heard and my noble friend quite rightly focused on the enormous contribution that they have made and, although I am older in my period of student politics, I understand and remember the enormous significance of the University of Jewish Students and I am sure that they are supported ably by the noble lady and my noble friend who more than many people in this room understand the personal impact of anti-Semitic abuse.

The Jewish chaplaincy at the University that I was able to meet during a reception also offers spiritual guidance, pastoral care, a sense of community, and provides essential support and many noble Lord have referenced the Stand with Us report and I was fortunate to attend the event and to hear directly the testimony from those students. It was shocking and affecting and it was reflected, as it is today, in this report. I was fortunate to be able to join the Friday night dinner of the Birmingham University Jewish Society and they told me it was the largest in the country and, as my noble friend outlined, actually, there was emphasis on Jewish life as much as on Jewish strife and I welcomed and enjoyed the hospitality and education and, interestingly, it was an interfaith event which had brought students together from across the University but there can be no doubt that these terrorist attacks on Israel of October 7 acted as a catalyst for an unprecedented increase in appalling anti-Semitic increase in appalling anti-Semitic incidents on campuses and these incidents, including calls for violence against Jewish people and Holocaust denial are unacceptable and must be addressed decisively.

We are committed to ensuring universities take concerted action to prevent and tackle anti-Semitism and all other forms of harassment and the noble Lord of emphasised the and the noble Lord of emphasised the action must be led from the top of universities and, to emphasise the significance of that, the Office for Students introduced a new registration commitment in July 2024 that will come into force on August 1 of this year. The condition is designed to trigger a cultural shift in attitudes and behaviours across the higher education sector and it will establish, among other things, reform and training, reporting mechanisms, and provision of support.

I was very taken with the testimony of the students that I card that they felt that there was not the appropriate mechanism to report concerns and there was not suitable action taken by the leadership of the old universities. This condition would require universities to developed ability and resources to implement provisions and the OFS would be able to take action against providers where there is or has been a breach of the condition including the several noble Lord have asked for the ability to fine universities when they fail to take the issue seriously.

As others have done, I will also highlight the money the government is allocated to tackle anti-Semitism in education. £500,000 has already been allocated to the University Jewish Chaplaincy to support student welfare on university campuses and, with respect to the work in higher education, increasing the confidence and capability of university staff and recognising and tackling anti- Semitism is, as we know, critical to improve the experience of Jewish students on capital that is why a key part of the Tackling Anti- Semitism in Education procurement is focused on delivering training and resources for staff including campus security and student union staff.

The training will support staff in facilitating difficult discussions facilitating difficult discussions and debate between students on the Israel-Palestine conflict and tools to support students in spotting and challenging this information such as anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. In addition, we are launching an innovation fund, providing opportunities for creative measures to tackle anti-Semitism in schools and colleges of this could include, for example, opportunity to strengthen students' critical thinking and literacy skills as well as debates on policy and interfaith collaboration to tackle anti- Semitism.

I understand the impatience of the noble Lord and in terms of the procurement and launch of the innovation fund, an announcement will be made as soon as possible. On the issue of handling incumbents raised by the noble Lord and others, I know that Lords have expressed concern about encampments and I wholly understand the chilling and freight impact of the way in which those encampments developed in campuses of the impact on Jewish students. So far, this academic year, there have been relatively few encampments established and I believe the universities have learned from the experiences of last year on how to de-escalate tension appear possible and to take formal measures to resolve the situation when that does not work.

A number of universities including Birmingham and Nottingham took legal action to remove the encampments that were causing disruptions to teaching and learning and I think that was important and learning was something important for other universities as well but we remain vigilant and are keen to ensure that any future protests do not disrupt student life and cause fear and concern in the way it happened in places last year. Several noble Lord have raised the issue of free speech. Let me be issue of free speech.

Let me be clear. Higher education must be a space for discussion, intellectual vigour, exposure to new ideas. In Norway and that excuse failure to act on anti-Semitism and, with respect to some of the particular elements of the higher education freedom of speech act, particularly in relation to the situation where concern was expressed to us that including by Jewish students that the impact of this might be to enable our lead some higher education providers to unduly prioritise this over the interests of those at risk of being intimidated and it is part of the reason we called for this and the new way we are delivering the act will help to alleviate some of those issues.

Let me be clear on the point of Holocaust denial, Holocaust denial, of course, whilst not unlawful, is, nevertheless, not protected speech and I would not expect to see anybody expressing Holocaust denial having a place on campuses and, of course, the act does not protect unlawful speech including some horrifying acts of discrimination and the anti-Semitic abuse with on campus and at the point about Hamas, of course it is a terrorist organisation and support for it is criminal and action should be taken where that occurs.

In terms of Holocaust education, a point raised by Lord Cryer, the Holocaust is the only historic event compulsory in the current curriculum and it will remain compulsory as a topic in a reformed National Curriculum. We support it by finding the professional development of teachers and that we make an additional £2 million available in the 2024 Autumn Budget for remembrance and education. On the international Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition, it is unequivocal and the backing of the definition of anti-Semitism and, finally, enclosing this debate, I think it's important to recognise the efforts that have been made to foster cohesion in campuses across this country, including by university vice chancellors and staff working closely with Jewish societies and students.

Of course, there is more to do and the Secretary Of State for Education is committed to a roundtable to discuss what more can be done collectively and at an institutional level to make this happen. We will continue to work closely and to challenge university authorities and others to ensure that we create a campus culture that upholds values of culture that upholds values of culture that upholds values of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg I beg the I beg the House I beg the House do I beg the House do now I beg the House do now adjourn.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page