Live Debate: Lords Chamber

Lords Chamber

Thursday 15th January 2026

(began 2 hours, 26 minutes ago)

11:08

Introduction(s): Baroness Hyde of Bemerton; Lord Roe of West Wickham

Charles Charles III, Charles III, by Charles III, by the Charles III, by the Grace Charles III, by the Grace of Charles III, by the Grace of God Charles III, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of her other realms and territories. King, head of the Commonwealth. Defender of the Faith to all Lords, spiritual and temporal, and all other subjects whatsoever to whom these presents shall come. Greeting. Know ye that we of our special grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act 1958, and of all other powers, in that behalf us enabling do by these presents advance, create and prefer our trusty and well beloved Sara Kathryn Sabres Hyde to the state degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baroness Hyde of Bemerton of Kings Cross in our London Borough of Islington.

And for us, our heirs and successors do appoint, give and grant unto her the said name, state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baroness Hyde of Bemerton to have and to hold unto her for her life willing and by these presents granting for us our heirs and successors, that she may have, hold, and possess a seat, place, and voice in Parliament and public assemblies and councils of us, our heirs and successors within our United Kingdom, amongst the Barons, and also that she may enjoy and use all the rights, privileges, Preeminences, immunities and advantages to the degree of a Baron duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed, or, as they do at present, use and enjoy.

In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent witness ourself at Westminster in the afternoon of the 12th day of January, in the fourth year of our reign, by warrant under the King's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sign-manual. I. Sara Baroness Hyde of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. Sara Baroness Hyde of Bemerton, do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles Charles III, Charles III, by Charles III, by the Charles III, by the grace Charles III, by the grace of Charles III, by the grace of God

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles III, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of her other realms and territories. of her other realms and territories. King, head of the Commonwealth, defender of the Faith to all Lords, defender of the Faith to all Lords, spiritual and temporal, and all other our subjects. Whatsoever to whom these presents shall come. whom these presents shall come. Greeting. Know ye that we of our especial grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act 1958, and of all other powers, in that behalf us enabling do by these presents advance, create and prefer our trusty and well-beloved Andrew Dudley Roe to the state degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baron Rowe, of West Wickham, of West Wickham, in our London Borough of Bromley.

And for us, our heirs and successors, to appoint, give and grant unto him the said name, state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baron Rowe, of West Wickham, to have and to hold unto him for his life willing and by these presents granting for us our heirs and successors, that he may have, hold and possess a seat, place, and voice in the parliaments and public assemblies and councils of us, our heirs and successors within our United Kingdom, amongst the Barons, and also that he may enjoy and use all the rights, privileges, Preeminences, immunities and advantages to the degree of a Baron duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed, or, as they do at present, use and enjoy.

In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent witness ourself at Westminster in the afternoon of the 13th day of January, in the fourth year of our reign, by warrant under the King's sign-manual. I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Andrew Lord Roe of West Wickham, do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors Charles, his heirs and successors

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First First Oral First Oral Question First Oral Question Lord First Oral Question Lord Harris

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First Oral Question Lord Harris of Haringey. My Lords, I draw attention to my registered interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission

11:19

Oral questions: Pandemic preparedness from Exercise Pegasus 2025 Lord Harris of Haringey (Labour)

National Preparedness Commission and beg leave to ask the first question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order Paper. My Lords Exercise Pegasus tested our ability to respond to a pandemic involving all nations of

11:20

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

the UK and thousands of participants. Evaluation and lesson identification is underway for the first three phases, with interim findings incorporated into the draft Pandemic Preparedness strategy, due to be published in early 2026. The final exercise phase, focusing on recovery, is planned for this summer. The government has committed to communicating exercise funding findings through the Post Exercises report this winter.

11:20

Lord Harris of Haringey (Labour)

- -

My Lords, I'm grateful to my noble friend for that response. And noble friend for that response. And it is important, of course, that Exercise Pegasus is not simply seen Exercise Pegasus is not simply seen as being about pandemics, but about the much wider issues of how every level of government and how the nation as a whole is prepared to deal with crises and emergencies. So in that context, could my noble friend tell us more about the way in which the voluntary community and faith sectors, and indeed the business community, were engaged in this exercise both at national and local and local resilience forum level?

11:21

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

My noble friend, who is a world >> My noble friend, who is a world leading expert on this area, is absolutely right. We can only. All exercises should be about ensuring that we can adopt a whole society to approach to resilience, and that includes making sure that all key stakeholders are involved. Conversations and engagements are ongoing. But to reassure your Lordships House, not only were 6000 professionals mobilised in each phase of this exercise, but we had 16 focus groups for population surveys, surveys and 2000 members of the public were involved, which included specific focus groups with the voluntary sector and key businesses to make sure that we could deliver.

And we can, because fundamentally, these these exercises are about making sure that the right relationships as place.

11:21

Lord Stirrup (Crossbench)

- -

Lord Singh Exercise Pegasus 2025 >> Lord Singh Exercise Pegasus 2025 is clearly extremely useful, but the chief of the Defence Staff has recently reported as saying, we do not have a holistic plan for the not have a holistic plan for the mobilisation of the NHS in the event of large scale conflict. What action is being taken to assess the requirements of such mobilisation, and to take any necessary remedial action that is required?

11:22

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

The noble and gallant Lord makes an incredibly important point about an incredibly important point about making sure that every part of our society is involved and prepared for whatever crisis may come in front of us. There is no more important role for this government than keeping our people safe. Whether that is ensuring that we have a strong armed forces or and as well as ensuring that our public services can cope with these moments. The note the chief of the Defence Staff also said in his response to the to Hcdc in the other place, that and he was clear in his evidence that the UK National Defence Plan will be developed across 2026, in line with our NATO commitments.

That includes both at home and abroad.

11:23

Lord McColl of Dulwich (Conservative)

- -

Lords Minister agree that the Covid epidemic was made much, much worse by obesity and as two thirds of the British people are obese or overweight and half our children are obese. What is the government doing to reduce that incidence? To reduce the future mortality in any epidemics in the future? Yes.

11:23

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

My Lords, I was hoping I looked a bit skinny today, but maybe not. The noble Lord raises a very The noble Lord raises a very important point about how about how we ensure that our that the general public is, as well as they can be, given that we don't know what the next threat may be, and we don't know how it will touch society. It's why this government launched its ten year health plan, which includes about how we engage with those people who have both health inequalities and wider inequalities, to ensure that every member of the general public is best placed to deal with them.

11:24

Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords. president of the Local Government Association. Feedback from Local Resilience Forum suggests that they're now clearer of their roles thanks to this exercise, but lack the surge funding to maintain the staff trained during Pegasus. Will the government be looking to commit to a multi-year resilience funding settlement for local resilience forums to ensure that lessons of Pegasus are not lost to pressures on local budgets?

11:24

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

The noble Lord raises a really important point, which is why important point, which is why additional funding has been allocated in terms of health to making sure we have long term 460 million. We have the investment in place. The noble Lord will be very aware that we currently have the LRF trailblazer scheme in place. We are in the process of developing the protocol, which is due for testing in March, and but any further issues around funding I hope will follow at that point.

11:25

Baroness Pitkeathley (Labour)

- -

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Harris mentioned the community and Harris mentioned the community and voluntary sector in his original question. It was very clear during the pandemic, during the pandemic, how very reliant we are on the community and voluntary sector to step up to the plate very quickly in times of emergency. They do, however, often feel they are consulted and involved a bit late. Can my noble friend, the Minister, assure me that this will not happen in future epidemics?

11:25

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

I'd like to reassure my noble >> I'd like to reassure my noble friend is absolutely right. I think many of us would have volunteered during this space, both through our faith communities or the community faith communities or the community groups that we are associated with. And it is key, as we as we saw during the pandemic, that voluntary and community groups are at the heart of many of our communities and faith groups. The reality is, during Exercise Pegasus, we ensure that their voices were heard.

Phase four of Of Pegasus is about how we recover from a pandemic, and those voices and stakeholder engagement, specifically with the sector are conversations.

11:26

Lord Harper (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, the next threat that faces the country is unlikely to be faces the country is unlikely to be the same as the last one. So what lessons has the government learnt about making sure that Ministers about making sure that Ministers can assess whatever the threat is, make the appropriate trade offs and respond quickly, but importantly, engage both Houses of Parliament to ensure there is proper democratic oversight and scrutiny of those important trade offs and choices that are made.

11:26

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

The noble Lords absolutely right. But it's not just about this House and the other place, but it's also about the four devolved assemblies and make it about the devolved assemblies and making sure that all nations and regions have proper democratic oversight and engagement in any process, which is why Pegasus included not just ministerial leads, which it did, and not just government, the relevant government departments and arm's length bodies, but also include regional and national governments to and the Lrfs to make sure that we knew who was responsible for and what time and where.

Candidly, there are holes that we need to fill. We need to learn from previous experiences, whether that's the pandemic, whether that is also the recent storms. But we also need to make sure that we're prepared for what may face us, which is why I'd urge all noble Lords to read the National Risk Register matrix to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

see where the threats may come from. Can I ask. The Minister what relationship,

11:27

Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)

- -

>> The Minister what relationship, if any, is there with the Baroness Hallett some inquiry. >> My Lords, we're very, very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, we're very, very grateful to Baroness Hallett inquiry into Covid 19. Obviously,

11:27

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

inquiry into Covid 19. Obviously, actually, operation sorry, Exercise Pegasus operation Exercise Pegasus came out of one of the came out of one of the recommendations in module one of the inquiry. So we are reflecting on their recommendations as they're making it, and we have guaranteed that there will be one major tier one exercise per year and publish their findings, which is an important part every year. And that is one of the key recommendations that has already come from Baroness Hallett review, and we look forward forward.

11:28

Lord Blunkett (Labour)

- -

My, my. >> My, my. >> The spot. Take cognisance of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The spot. Take cognisance of what's happened with the Baroness Hallett interim report in relation Hallett interim report in relation to the use of statistics and the suggestion that a week earlier, lockdown would have saved 23,000 lives. The reliance at the time on certain academics, particularly at Imperial College, and the reliance of Baroness Hallett on the statistics from Imperial College, are extremely worrying because they've been debunked. So would my friend ensure that people are asked to really check the robustness of the analysis and the statistical methodology when they're going forward on Pegasus or other reports in the future?

11:29

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

My noble friend is absolutely right that my statistics may not be right that my statistics may not be someone else's statistics. And so, yes, absolutely, we should always interrogate the data that's being

**** Possible New Speaker ****

interrogate the data that's being put in front of us. My Lords. We welcome the scale and ambition of Exercise Pegasus. ambition of Exercise Pegasus. Simulating crisis events in this way is clearly vital if we are to strengthen national resilience and

11:29

Baroness Finn (Conservative)

- -

avoid the shortcomings exposed during the Covid pandemic. However, the exercise was conducted across the exercise was conducted across discrete days over several months with breaks in between. A real pandemic is relentless, cumulative, pandemic is relentless, cumulative, exhausting for systems and decision makers alike. Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, explain how the government ensured that this sense of sustained pressure, operational fatigue and compounding risk was adequately captured within the exercise design? Despite the stage nature of the simulation?

11:30

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

The noble Lady raises a very, very important point, which is how realistic we can really make exercises. Some of this is exercises. Some of this is genuinely about making sure that the processes and people are all in place and they know each other, which was one of the fundamental issues that didn't necessarily work during the pandemic. But one of the things that we did seek to do and continue to seek to do, as this exercise continues later into the year, is use focus groups and other and other mechanisms to ensure that there were as realistic environments as possible and to try and stress test what was going on.

We continue to do so, and I look forward to seeing the initial findings report imminently.

11:30

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

Second Oral Question Lord Trefgarne. Trefgarne. >> My Lord, I beg leave to ask the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

question. Standing in my name only. My Lords, the Royal Navy has a fleet of nine submarines currently fleet of nine submarines currently in service. It operates four Vanguard class nuclear powered and nuclear armed submarines in Operation Relentless, the continuous at sea deterrent which has been successfully maintained for over 56 years. The Vanguard class will be sequentially replaced by four dreadnought dreadnought class submarines, which will enter service in the 2030s. Additionally, five astute class nuclear powered and conventionally armed submarines are in service, with two more currently under construction.

11:31

Lord Trefgarne (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I'm grateful to the noble, the noble Lord. Is it not noble, the noble Lord. Is it not the case that the four submarines to which my question refers are the essence of our nuclear defence delivery systems? And is he satisfied that they are maintained and operated to the required state?

11:31

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

The really key point for all of >> The really key point for all of us in this House and for our nation and for our alliances, is that it's and for our alliances, is that it's a continuous at sea deterrent. And I can reassure everyone that we do maintain that continuous at sea deterrent. But the noble Lord is quite right. It's been the foundation of peace and security of our alliance for decades under all governments, and long may it continue to be so.

11:32

Lord Bruce of Bennachie (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lord, my Lords. of service quite frequently, and also given the constraints. Are we sure that we can maintain the programme that he's outlined and budget?

11:32

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

I'm confident about that. I'm not going to go into the actual numbers of submarines that are operational for for, for obvious operational for for, for obvious reasons. But he will have heard the First Sea Lord a few few months ago, a couple of months ago, when he outlined the submarine recovery plan, which was about saying we need to do more to ensure that we that the maintenance programs that we have, the docking facilities, that we have, the maintenance facilities we have, that we do more to ensure that those are the standard that we would want, and that will help us ensure that we get the availability that we want as well.

11:32

Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (Crossbench)

- -

My Lords, my Lords, the 2025 Sdsr committed to 15 billion investment in sovereign warhead programme by the end of this Parliament. Could the Minister give us some indication of what progress has been made in implementing that investment programme?

11:33

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

I need to be careful about the >> I need to be careful about the figures here. So to the noble Baroness, but in terms of of the money. But I can reassure her that that programme is going ahead, is going ahead according to programme and will deliver what we need for our deterrent programme.

11:33

Lord Spellar (Labour)

- -

My Lords, would the Minister >> My Lords, would the Minister care to remind the House how much the nuclear programme is suffering from the enormously damaging freeze from the enormously damaging freeze on that programme? Between 2010 and 2016, during the period of the coalition where the Prime Minister gave in to the demands from the Liberal Democrats?

11:33

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

Yeah. >> The there have been challenges for the programme over a number of years. And my, my noble friend is years. And my, my noble friend is has outlined one of them. But what I think we can be, he can be reassured about and those who read our proceedings, including our adversaries, can be reassured about, is that we are investing in our programme. We have got the Vanguard continuous at sea deterrent. At the moment we have the dreadnought programme, which is going to replace it, backed by billions of pounds worth of money.

I would say to my noble friend that amounts to £41 billion in terms of the build programme, 31 billion for 31 billion for actual build, with a £10 billion reserve. And we're expecting the first of those dreadnought submarines to be in service in the early 2030s. So I think that's what we need to read. And our adversaries need to read as well.

11:34

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Conservative)

- -

I declare my interest as a serving member of His Majesty's serving member of His Majesty's Armed Forces. My my concern is not so much the submarines, but the people. And I pay tribute to our service personnel serving in the silent service. I had the privilege of spending three days on HMS trenchant under the ice a few years ago, and three days was definitely enough for me. We have Harmony guidelines, which seeks to find the balance between time at sea and time at home with their families.

This is vital when it comes to retention. Can I simply ask my noble friend to ensure that those harmony guidelines are being met?

11:35

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

We certainly take very seriously the Harmony guidelines, which look the Harmony guidelines, which look at the the welfare not only of the crew who are serving and the noble crew who are serving and the noble Lord is quite right to remind us about the need for us to recognise their service in what, for many of us, would be unthinkable circumstances. But he's quite right to remind us about that. But it's also about the families. And certainly the Harmony guidelines are about the culture on board, but they're also about how we support the families, with many loved ones away for considerable periods of time.

Certainly, he's right to remind us about that, and they government.

11:35

Lord Watts (Labour)

- -

Does the Minister agree with me that the opposition, who call for more expenditure, need to demonstrate where that expenditures demonstrate where that expenditures come going to come from? Otherwise they are hollow claims and they're not backed up by any resource?

11:36

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

The there are debates about the defence budget, and it's a matter for the opposition to explain some of the promises that they're making. As my my noble friend points out, I'm pleased. And no doubt in a later question will hear much of this. I'm pleased to celebrate the fact that this government is investing record levels of money into our defence, into the Ministry of Defence and into our defence industry and our capabilities.

11:36

Baroness Goldie (Conservative)

- -

Yeah. >> Yeah. >> My Lord. Can the Minister update the House on the nuclear submarines the House on the nuclear submarines outer service? And can I ask him on what conclusions a submarine dismantling programme has come to based on HMS Swiftsure at Rosyth, and what are the current projected costs of the overall decommissioning and dismantling programme?

11:37

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

Well, I can give some of the information that the noble Baroness has asked me for the Defence Nuclear Enterprise's submarine dismantling project has achieved a major milestone as it completes the fin cut and removal on HMS Swiftsure. She will become the first decommissioned Royal Navy submarine to be dismantled by the end of 2026, establishing a unique and world first methodology to submarine disposal. Over 500 tonnes of conventional waste has already been removed and recycled from Swiftsure, which the noble Baroness asked about, and the innovative programme of work will enable.

Around 90% of the submarine structure and components components to be reused or recycled. So I think we demonstrate to the noble Baroness the considerable progress is being made, and Swiftsure is an exemplar for what will come next.

11:37

Lord Walney (Crossbench)

- -

Lord Willis still, the government's policy. government's policy. >> Oh, my Lords, we talk about the the submarine programme rightly as the submarine programme rightly as a national endeavour, and we know that every corner of the United Kingdom is required to be part of the supply chain to build the submarine programme, which is an opportunity and is also a challenge for the programme. So will he ask the Ministry of Defence to work with the prime contractors and with us in the aukus all-party group, ably led by my successor in the Commons, Michelle Scroggs, to make available the details of the companies who are either now or may be part in future of the supply chain, so that we can all work together and engage local MPs in this.

11:38

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

Yeah. >> The noble Lord from his previous incarnation as the MP in Barrow, knows significant amounts about knows significant amounts about nuclear and the nuclear programme. But he's quite right to point out and highlight not only the important work around major companies and big the big primes, which you'll know about, but also the smaller companies and the supply chain right across the whole of the UK. And as my noble friend Lord Spellar will often say, we need to make sure that that as much of that industrial capability is developed within our own country.

And he's quite right to do that. And as far as the Aukus all-party group he's mentioned, I'm quite happy to meet with them to discuss how we take this forward.

11:39

Lord Wigley (Plaid Cymru)

- -

My my Lords, I realise that I represent a minority view within this chamber. But can I ask the Minister, is it still the Minister, is it still the government's policy that they reserve the position of using nuclear weapons as a first response nuclear weapons as a first response to a conventional strike, an approach which many of us would regard as totally morally unacceptable?

11:39

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

EA of course, the government's position is to maintain a position position is to maintain a position that we've had over over many decades, and I appreciate the point decades, and I appreciate the point that the noble Lord raises. He will know, because the debate is often rages about this. I think the fact that he can say that and he can speak without fear or favour in this chamber, a in a democracy is part of why we keep the nuclear deterrent to defend our democracy.

For those who seek to undermine it.

11:40

Lord Swire (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, it is my understanding that the SNP in Edinburgh maintain they are committed to the future of Faslane as a base, whilst at the Faslane as a base, whilst at the same time saying they would, in an independent Scotland, want to rid it of nuclear weapons. What discussions does he have on a regular basis with Edinburgh about that position, and how many jobs from the nuclear programme are going to be created in Scotland?

11:40

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

The noble Lord is quite right. >> The noble Lord is quite right. It's thousands of jobs dependent upon, dependent upon the nuclear deterrent in Scotland and across the whole of the UK. But I often make the point around the SNP and we see their inconsistent position with respect to, to nuclear weapons. I would remind him a few years ago the SNP's position was not only opposition to nuclear weapons, but opposition to NATO. And when they changed that position, an SNP conference, some MSPs resigned from the party as a result of that.

So now you've got a position opposition to nuclear weapons, but maintaining membership of NATO. I think the SNP needs to be reminded that NATO is a nuclear alliance. Third Oral Question Lord Butler of Brockwell.

11:41

Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)

- -

My Lord. >> I beg leave to ask the question. >> Standing in my. >> Name on the Order Paper. >> The government is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Committed to ensuring games are enjoyed safely and responsibly by everyone, including children. everyone, including children. Industry led guidance to improve protections for players in relation to Loot boxes was published in 2023. A 12 month implementation period ended in July 2024, and we commissioned independent research to assess its effectiveness. We have engaged relevant government departments and regulators to consider the research. We will publish the report and set out our next steps in the coming months.

11:41

Lord Butler of Brockwell (Crossbench)

- -

My Lords, I'm grateful for that reply, but is it not time that Loot reply, but is it not time that Loot boxes were recognised for what they are a form of government, a form of gambling, highly addictive to children? The last government opted for industry led regulation, but independent research shows that it is not being effectively applied. Will the government act to ensure safe regulation, particularly for children?

11:42

Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)

- -

Clearly. >> Protection for children is key. But as the noble Lord rightly states, loot boxes are not currently legally considered gambling as individuals are unable to cash out their purchases as currency. Where unlicensed gambling is identified, the Gambling Commission has shown that it will take swift enforcement action against this. I mentioned the report that was finalised and received in December. The government is considering the implications of this findings, along with other government departments and relevant regulators. We have committed to publishing its findings and will do so shortly alongside our next steps, including keeping our position on possible future legislative options under review.

11:43

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Last year. Journal of Behavioural Addictions found that of 394 popular mobile console and PC games containing console and PC games containing loot boxes, only 8.4% correctly disclosed their presence. Action on non-compliance by the Advertising Standards Authority is taken through informal resolution, without transparency or meaningful consequences, resulting in failure to deter. Neither the ASA nor the Gambling Commission is taking ownership of the gap in enforcement. Will the Minister convene a meeting of the ASA and the Gambling Commission to clearly define responsibilities and strengthen enforcement action against companies which continue to breach the rules?

11:44

Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)

- -

As the noble Lady would expect, I regularly meet with the Gambling I regularly meet with the Gambling Commission and do discuss their enforcement activity. I've also met with the Advertising Standards Authority, and indeed, officials also meet with representatives of the ASA and the Gambling Commission on a range of matters. DCMS has previously raised concerns detailed by members with the ASA, and I'm happy to do so again and to make sure. Although we are confident the two regulators do talk to each other, I will take steps to make sure that they are liaising very clearly on these two.

Two these two regulators are liaising in detail on this particular point.

11:44

The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, the Gambling Commission report is clear. Many children spend their money on children spend their money on gambling, and 31% of young people who saw gambling related content on social media say influencers had advertised it. So whether it is loot boxes or social media, we now have a mountain of indisputable evidence. Children are addicted to smartphones and gambling is a small part. So why is the government not acting on the voices of parents and teachers across the country who are urgently asking for a formal smartphone ban in schools?

11:45

Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)

- -

As a noble order? Be aware, most >> As a noble order? Be aware, most schools so 90% of secondary schools and 99.8% of primary schools have a and 99.8% of primary schools have a mobile phone policy limiting students use of mobile phones during school hours. We we actually don't want to exclude children from services which are age appropriate in relation to screen time. The government is taking action, but I think it is important to recognise that screens are part of family life.

Now. The question parents are asking is not whether they should use them, but how to use them. Well, the government is going to issue its first guidance on screen use for under-fives in April. This will include tips on how it can be incorporated into activities such as talking, reading and playing safely.

11:46

To refer. interest. >> Service for. >> Those with gambling related harms on the NHS. I just wonder harms on the NHS. I just wonder whether the Minister would, would, would consider that any, any product, the way you could exchange product, the way you could exchange money for a random reward would be classified as gambling, of which loot boxes are. You did mention that you couldn't. That the reason why loot boxes are not classified as gambling is that there was no exchange in real life of the monetary reward that is actually currently very disputed.

You can exchange in the in the great, the so-called grey market, your your your your money that you gain. So loot boxes have all the features of gambling and to call them gambling lite is is something that doesn't protect children and doesn't protect young people.

11:46

Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)

- -

Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I haven't referred to them as gambling lite. The the law is so clear that the Loot boxes aren't legally currently considered legally currently considered gambling for the reasons the noble Lady outlines. What I would say is that the grey market is not a legal market, and the Gambling Commission and the Advertising Standards Authority, where appropriate, do take action on illegal gambling in whatever form it takes.

11:47

Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)

- -

We talked about. fact of the matter is, even if they're not the technical definition of gambling, they are close enough. And in the government's sound like they're hiding behind pedantry here, can we take some action that stops this compulsive behaviour being pushed onto children?

11:47

Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)

- -

Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So I think this is about making sure that children are safe, and the government is really committed to ensuring that games are enjoyed to ensuring that games are enjoyed safely and responsibly by everyone, including children. The government maintains the view that loot boxes should not be purchased by children unless enabled by a parent or guardian, and that is a clear position, and all players should have access to spending controls and transparent information. And this is why we have funded detailed academic research into the implementation of Loot box guidance, which, as I mentioned earlier, will be published in the near future.

11:48

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)

- -

With quite a number of countries. >> Around the world having already. >> Banned Loot boxes and quite a number of gamers having developed a number of gamers having developed a resistance and an anger about them, some online commentary suggests that Loot boxes are already on the way out. And there's a next new thing which is known as sweeps or sweepstake, which involves buying coins for social gameplay. And then there is a engaged in that is a raffle like, or a slot machine like process that then produces rewards.

Is the government aware of that? Is the government looking at that, and is the government going to see? We know the industry will react. If you just legislate against Loot boxes, they'll try and find something. Don't we need legislation that covers the whole thing of gambling like system set up in gaming?

11:49

Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)

- -

Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So the noble Lady correctly identifies that sometimes our debate doesn't necessarily keep up debate doesn't necessarily keep up with developments. I think that one of the major protections we do have in place is the Online Safety Act, which applies to online services, which allows users to share content and interact with each other. But as I have said in previous responses, the government does does keep up to date with developments and keeps all options under review.

11:49

Lord Watts (Labour)

- -

Oh, isn't it the case that the gamblers face bigger problems from offshore, unregulated sites? And what the government going to do to actually make sure that they are they are held accountable, given the fact that there's been a massive growth in recent years on them sites.

11:50

Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)

- -

So I think my noble friend is >> So I think my noble friend is referring to what we're doing to tackle the illegal market and as, tackle the illegal market and as, as as members of your Lordships' House be aware. As part of the budget, the Treasury announced an increase for remote duty, but at the same time increased funding to tackle the illegal market will be working with the licensed sector to work through how we increase enforcement with the.

Obviously, this is something led by the Gambling Commission to make sure that we focus on how we tackle the illegal market, which is an element of the risk that people associate with online activity.

11:50

Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Lords, the noble Lords, the noble Lord. Butler's original question pointed out that industry regulation, voluntary industry regulation wasn't working. Evidence now exists that that's the case. The question to the government are the government satisfied with continuing with industry regulation, or does it do they see that change is required to keep children safe from these loot boxes? Yeah.

11:51

Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)

- -

This is exactly the the matter being dealt with by the research being dealt with by the research that the government commissioned. This is going to be published in the near future along with the government's response. I'm happy to invite noble Lords that have raised concerns about this into the Department to be briefed on the research and the government's response in due course.

11:51

Oral questions: Shortfall of £28 billion in the budget of the Ministry of Defence over the next four years Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)

Fourth Oral Question Lord Young of Cookham. >> I beg leave to ask the question, standing in my name on the Order Paper. My Lords, the Defence Investment Plan will set out how we Investment Plan will set out how we will deliver the vision set out in the Strategic Defence Review. It will be a coherent, fully costed

11:51

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

and affordable plan against the defence budget. Over the course of this Parliament, the government has this Parliament, the government has committed to the greatest sustained investment since the Cold War, with investment since the Cold War, with over £270 billion going into defence we've set a further ambition to spend 3% in the next parliament and spend 3% in the next parliament and joined NATO allies in a commitment to spend 5% on national security

11:52

Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)

- -

to spend 5% on national security from 2035. I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. The Chief of Defence Staff has rightly warned the country about the growing threat from Russia and other countries, and the need for adequate preparation in response to questions about the 28 billion shortfall on Monday before the Defence Select Committee. In another place, the Chief of Defence Staff, while not directly answering the question, said this right now we are in a position where we are forecasting to spend more than the budget we have.

So does it not follow from that, that without extra cash from the Treasury, over and above the sums the noble Lord has just referred to? Without that, the government may have to postpone or abandon major programmes?

11:53

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

Well. deal with choices according to the budget that it has set for it. Even if you increase the budget, you still have to make choices about what you choose to spend that money on and what the chief of the Defence Staff or the other chiefs are involved in is discussing what capabilities we need with the budget that we have to ensure that we have the war fighting readiness that we need, and those choices are taking place. And I would just say to the, to the, to the noble Lord and to the House, there are considerable sums of money being spent at the present time as well, billions of pounds worth of money.

And I keep repeating this under current plans, the capital. The total budget in 2425 was £60.2 billion in 2829. On current plans it will be £73.5 billion. So there's billions of pounds worth of additional money being spent. And what we're seeking to do is to make sure we spend it properly, appropriately and to fight the wars of the future. Administration.

11:54

Lord Stirrup (Crossbench)

- -

And of course, he's quite right that he knows as well as the rest of us do, that those are meaningless figures. What really matters is how much you can buy for the money you're spending. And it is the case that given the accounting changes that have taken place over the intervening years, we are currently spending a lower percentage of GDP on defence than we were in 2010, when we were not facing the very serious threats to European security that we see today.

How does the government explain this?

11:54

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

Well, as I say, the government >> Well, as I say, the government explains it by using the figures that I've just outlined to the to the noble and gallant Lord. There the noble and gallant Lord. There are billions of pounds worth of additional money. You can't alter the fact that it's gone from the figures I just gave to the noble Lord, young, to the figure it will be. But it's importantly, is that the noble and gallant Lord knows far better than me.

There are choices that have to be made as well within that budget, about what you will do, what capabilities you will you will spend it upon. And one of the challenges, one of the choices that confront us is what lessons we learn from Ukraine, what capabilities we need from for the future to ensure that we fight the war of the future, not the war of the past. And that is some of the discussion that's going on at the present time as well.

11:55

Lord Bruce of Bennachie (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Isn't the reality that the defence investment plan has been delayed because of concerns inside government and the Cabinet about its affordability, especially given the commitment to increase our own sovereign capacity? And in that context, isn't it reality that cuts will have to be made to achieve that, as well as cuts to be made just to fulfil the current budget? So will the government recognise that we need to have a much clearer and honest declaration of exactly what's needed, and the public need to know what the threat is, and why we need to spend more on it.

11:55

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

I agree with the last point about making sure that the public have greater awareness of the threats that are faced in the national conversation. The noble Lord has asked me about that before, and we're seeking to do something about that. I would just say within the current budgets we've signed since 2024, we've signed more than 1000 defence contracts since July 24th, including 86% with British based businesses, and spent more than £31 billion with UK industry. And I just say to the noble Lord he could be the Secretary of State for defence.

He would sit there with a budget and have to make choices about which capabilities he believed were necessary in order to, in order to bring the country to the war fighting readiness we need. That's what the discussions are going on at the present time. And I know there's frustration about the delay to the defence investment plan. But I tell you what I would rather have is a defensive investment plan that's affordable and a defensive investment plan that meets the needs of our armed forces and our defence industry so we can fight the wars of the future.

My Lords. My Lord. My Lord, my Lords. Lords.

11:56

Lord Brennan of Canton (Labour)

- -

My Lords to increasing defence spending. And it's not just about the quantum, it's also about dealing with project overruns and delays, dealing with cancelled projects, dealing with poor management, dealing with the contract, overspending we saw under the last government. What is this government going to do to make sure that our defence spending is actually well spent?

11:57

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

Yeah. his question. And that's why defence reform has taken place within the Ministry of Defence with the establishment of the National Armaments Directorate, with the new National armaments director in post, who's addressing the very real problems and very real concerns that my noble friend has quite rightly pointed out.

11:57

Viscount Trenchard (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I'm not sure if the noble Lord, the Minister, actually acknowledged the shortfall of 28 billion as identified by the Chief of Defence Staff and the other chiefs. But I do understand that we all wait for the defence investment plan. But could he say whether the shortfall or the cash squeeze that the Ministry of Defence is, is facing is the reason for the delay in the YDOs award of its first contract to edge wing with regard project?

11:58

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

Well, obviously many decisions will be subject to the defence investment plan, but the noble Lord has been an advocate of the GCap programme for a number of years. He he was berating me a few months ago about where we did the government support the GCap programme. He knows that the government support the GCap programme. He's seen the importance of that relationship between Japan, Italy and the UK. The specifics of that particular contract will have to wait, but the overall support for GCap is there and has been well stated in this chamber and beyond my.

Interest as. chamber and beyond my. Interest as.

11:58

Lord Harlech (Conservative)

- -

A serving Army Reserve officer. And I'll be on the I'll be on the live firing ranges with my battalion this weekend. The reason I bring that up is because we're hearing worrying signals across the Army Reserve, that reserve service days are special. Taskings are being turned off to meet budgetary requirements. Will the noble Lord, the Minister, assure the House that in the forthcoming Defence Investment Plan, all reserve force budgets will be protected and boosted to meet our operational effectiveness requirements?

11:59

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

Yeah, well, first of all, it >> Yeah, well, first of all, it would be wrong not to acknowledge the service of the of the noble Lord that that he undertakes on Lord that that he undertakes on behalf of our nation. So can I just start by by saying that? And if you could pass on those to the other reservists that he will be training with at the at the weekend in terms of, in terms of what he's asked, obviously, again, that will be subject to defence investment plan.

But let me say this reserves are important to this government. They will be an important part of the way in which we we ensure that we have war fighting readiness in the future, and the reserves will play an important part in that. And of course, alongside that, they will need the necessary training.

11:59

Baroness Goldie (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, the premise of my noble friend Lord Young's question could not be simpler. If the money isn't there, what is going to be cut? And the noble Lord, the minister's admirable verbal limbo dancing has not answered that question. Let me try and help. Can I? Can I turn this on its head? And can I invite the noble Lord, the Minister, to start spelling out what is being funded now? For example, in reply to me yesterday, we seem to make some encouraging headway on training and equipping the Special Boat Service to enable our elite soldiers to board sanctioned, illegally flagged vessels.

Could that one get a tick?

12:00

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

I'm not going to comment on the operation of of Special forces, and the Baroness in her previous role wouldn't have done that either, however nicely it was asked. Let me just let me, let me let me just say there are I mean, I outlined in one other noble Lords about the money that is being spent, but I mean, we're we're developing munitions factories that will be money spent on that. There's a defence housing strategy. There will be money spent on that.

The typhoon and T26 deals are enabling imports and monies to be spent there. The Dragonfire laser system, we're spending money on that new drone factories. There's a new program, as I say, to build factories. We're spending billions of pounds on the nuclear deterrent. There are all sorts of money's being spent. And whilst we're talking about this, let's just also reflect on what our armed forces have done in the last few few months, notwithstanding the fact that this debate is about the budget, and we've seen RAF typhoons take action in Syria, we've seen the the carrier strike group, we've seen the commitment to the coalition of the willing.

We've seen forces in in Estonia and elsewhere. So there's considerable and the support to the American action to to deal with the Shadow fleet, all of those I know, supported by the noble Baroness. And so I know I understand the point of Lord Young's question, but I also take the point. We should also reflect on what we do do, as well as the challenges that this country faces.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, that concludes oral questions for today. This might be a moment when noble Lords who wish Odds. Odds. We Odds. We now Odds. We now come Odds. We now come to Odds. We now come to an Odds. We now come to an instrument previously debated in Grand previously debated in Grand Committee. I think we are Amendment. England and Wales ordered 2025 Lord Lemos.

12:03

Business of the House

My Lords, I beg to move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content. To the contrary, not content. To the contrary, not content. I think the contents have it rather weakly, but they have it. OK, we now come to the questions on OK, we now come to the questions on an answer to an urgent question asked in the House of Commons on Tuesday the 13th of January on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

proposed Chinese embassy. And we'll start with the frontbenchers. My Lords, it is deeply

12:03

Urgent Question Repeat: The released unredacted plans for the proposed Chinese Embassy

>> My Lords, it is deeply regrettable that in the other place, this urgent question was not answered by the Security Minister, given it was asked by the shadow Security Minister. Of course, in light of her significant experience

12:03

Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)

- -

in your Lordships' House the noble Baroness. The Minister will, of course, be aware that here Ministers answer for the whole Ministers answer for the whole government and not just their department. Accordingly, when I now go on to ask a question about go on to ask a question about security issues, I am sure that she will not disappoint us by saying will not disappoint us by saying this as a live planning matter and cannot be commented upon. With that in mind, the United States have in mind, the United States have said that they are deeply concerned by the new Chinese Embassy, given its now revealed secret rooms and its location.

So can the noble Baroness, the Minister say whether our allies, including the United States, back the approval of the embassy?

12:04

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Labour)

- -

My Lords, I wouldn't want to disappoint the noble Lord. So I will say that it would not be appropriate to comment on a live planning application. He would expect me to say that. And I would say that on behalf of the whole government, not just MHCLG. National security is the first duty of government more generally. All relevant planning considerations will be taken into account when making a decision in this case in relation to the United States. He will know the government regularly engages with representatives of foreign governments, including the United States, to discuss a broad range of issues, and details of these discussions are not made public.

12:05

Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Would the Minister agree with me that it is a material circumstance that this will be the largest Communist Party of China building in Europe, which will coordinate transnational repression in the United Kingdom, coordinate espionage on an industrial scale, including electronic and human surveillance. Will initiate bounties on British passport holders resident here in the United Kingdom. So shouldn't the Prime Minister, when he visits Beijing, not congratulate China on having planning approval for its embassy, but instead inform the Chinese authorities that we will be putting in place China on the foreign interference registration scheme.

We will prosecute those putting bounties on British passport holders resident in the UK, and we will tighten international repression laws here in the United Kingdom.

12:06

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Labour)

- -

I understand noble Lords frustration about the not being able to answer some of the questions yet, about what material planning considerations have been taken into account, but they will be when we determine the application. This is a decision for planning Ministers independent of the rest of government and planning. Ministers must take decisions following the quasi judicial process that is completely right and correct for those decisions based on evidence and planning rules. And I would say about the issue around transnational repression.

We will not tolerate attempts by foreign governments to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm their critics overseas, especially in the United Kingdom.

12:06

Lord Spellar (Labour)

- -

My Lords. >> My Lords. >> We now come to some degree of degree of reality in that embassies degree of reality in that embassies are for relations between states. This not imply approval of states. Furthermore, spying activities do emanate from embassies right the way back in, in this in this country to ambassadors being expelled for being part of plots to assassinate monarchs, let alone the regular expulsion of of Russian spies from the from from from the Russian embassy.

Could we therefore be very clear that about the size of the embassy that large, large countries tend to have large embassies? China is a very large company. That's just a fact. And can we just deal with this practically rather than with the over exaggeration?

12:07

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Labour)

- -

Yes. of the size of the embassy. If, as a material planning consideration, that will be taken into account as part of the consideration that the decision making Minister will make in relation to China's presence in the UK, we already China already has seven diplomatic buildings in this country, so it's not new for them to have a presence here. This is about a particular planning application for their new embassy and decisions will be taken according to the material planning considerations.

I. But I'm afraid you're going to get that from me. Whichever way the question is framed. Thank you. framed. Thank you.

12:08

Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)

- -

Most Londoners know just how difficult it is to get a tiny little extension on the back of their house. Approved. I wonder if the noble Lady would agree with me. Why on earth does an embassy, a foreign embassy, need such a huge building in such an important area? Even the United States of America hasn't got such a huge embassy. Does she not agree that taking away even security issues. This is just a ridiculous application?

12:08

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Labour)

- -

Well, the noble Lady will have a >> Well, the noble Lady will have a view on that herself. What? The Minister has taken the decision have to do is determine the have to do is determine the application as it stands. The documents were submitted in the correct way to Tower Hamlets Council. The decision is now being considered in MCHLG. It is a decision for planning Ministers, and it's open for any party to make representations on the case about the matter.

The noble Lady raises or anything else, and all relevant planning considerations will be taken into account when making the decision. decision.

12:09

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (Crossbench)

- -

I have been extremely out of date, but would the noble Lady agree that it is conceivable that those responsible for keeping an eye on the Chinese Embassy in London might prefer it to be concentrated on one site, rather than spread over an eight, nine, ten all over London.

12:09

Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords, I think that's a matter for the security services and not for the planning matters. >> My Lords, the, the the Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the, the the Minister is very keen on talking about material planning considerations, and she's already said that the and she's already said that the size of the embassy is one of the material planning considerations. Can I ask about one of the other planning considerations, which has caused some concern? A great deal of concern, which is the proximity of the embassy to to important data infrastructure. And can I ask that in considering the material nature of the planning consideration, has a full risk analysis been carried out on this issue? Who carried out that risk analysis? And were any mitigating issues suggested by that risk assessment?

12:10

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Labour)

- -

Well, as is usual with a planning application, all interested parties were able to submit representations to the planning to the planning inquiry when that took place, and they have been subsequently able to submit representations to the Department as it considered this planning application. There were submissions from the Foreign Office and the Home Office, and I'm sure that very due consideration will be paid to those both in the original process and as the matter moves forward.

12:11

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)

- -

Mine is also a material planning question. Given the human rights abuses in China against the Uyghurs, the Tibetan people, the Hong Kongers and many others, large protests can be expected outside the embassy and we surely want to facilitate those protests. The right for peaceful process here in the UK. Police have expressed concern that the site is not appropriate for such protests. Is this being taken into consideration? Great. Thank you.

12:11

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Labour)

- -

Well, the police, like other interested parties, are able to submit their their information to the planning inspector and to now the Minister who's making the decision when the decision is taken. And my understanding is the final decision will be made on or before the 20th of January. All of the relevant submissions will be made public.

12:12

Lord Cashman (Non-affiliated)

- -

My Lord. As a resident of Tower Hamlets, I would like to point out that of course, the first Chinatown in the UK existed in the East End of London, not far from where the current building is proposed, a building that has been largely disused for approximately eight years. So therefore I say to the the my noble friend, the Minister, does she agree with me that the important issues here are that we apply the same principles and the same laws, and enforce the same laws and principles as we would with any other country?

12:12

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Labour)

- -

My noble friend makes an important point that if we were considering this planning application for any embassy, we would consider it according to the propriety that exists. And it's very strong propriety guidance around planning applications and strictly according to the material considerations that need to be taken into account for planning. That process is broad and wide, and allows all interested parties to submit the information that they feel is relevant to the planning application. It is then for the decision maker to decide what which decision.

12:13

Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, security. We've been told, is a planning issue is relevant to it. What are the criteria by which security is to be measured in this context?

12:13

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Labour)

- -

There are two elements of >> There are two elements of security. One is the security of the building itself, and the other the building itself, and the other is the security of the site. So where those are material planning considerations, they will be taken into account as they should be as well. Any submissions from the security service, from the police and others when the planning application is considered.

12:14

Lord Callanan (Conservative)

- -

Lord Watts time is now up for that question. We now come to questions on a statement made in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the House of Commons on Tuesday the 13th of January on Iran, and we start with the front benchers. My Lords, the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the. Situation in Iran is very fast moving and there have been significant developments since the significant developments since the original statement by the government last Tuesday. Before moving on to the specific questions moving on to the specific questions I would like to raise with the noble Baroness, the Minister, I think I would like to take a moment think I would like to take a moment to reflect on the incredible bravery of the Iranian people who have taken to the streets day after day in protest against the cruel, barbaric and despotic regime that currently resides in Tehran.

Too often, my Lords, we in this country take our long held freedoms for granted and forget that across the world there are fearless protesters literally risking their lives for nothing more than freedom and democracy. It is truly humbling. Those protesters, they face brutal treatment by the regime. Over 2000 people have been killed, but still they are standing up bravely against that brutality and oppression. Against the backdrop of the appalling actions of the Iranian regime. Could the noble Baroness, the Minister, please update the House on the actions that the government is taking to hold Iran to account? What further steps are Ministers considering to ensure that the Iranian regime is subject to the appropriate additional sanctions? We welcome the fact that the Iranian ambassador has now been summoned.

Can the noble Baroness please confirm whether the case of Erfan Soltani was raised with him? Last night, it was reported that the British embassy in Tehran has been closed temporarily. Can the Minister please update the House on the work that the embassy staff are doing and currently undertaking to support British citizens currently still in Iran, and how they will retain that support as they move to operating remotely? How will embassy staff support Craig and Lindsay Forman, who have been currently detained in Iran? Could we please have an update on their case? We have also seen reports that the government are withdrawing some personnel from the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar.

This is the first opportunity we have had to ask questions about these decisions. Could the noble Baroness please update the House on the reasons for that decision, and when the limited withdrawal of personnel will be completed? On the actions of the US, we know that President Trump has been forthright in his public challenges to the Iranian regime. Could the Minister please confirm what conversations have taken place between the UK government officials and Ministers and their US counterparts? Will we work in lockstep with our American allies in giving robust response to these events in Iran? And has the Prime Minister spoken to President Trump directly to discuss our response? Finally, I would like to reiterate our support for the protestors in Iran who are so bravely standing up for freedom and democracy at the risk of the ultimate personal sacrifice.

Their behaviour of the Iranian regime is truly horrific, and we support the government in their decision to summon the ambassador. Ministers must continue to work at pace to hold the regime in Tehran to account for their brutal oppression of those brave protesters fighting for liberty and democracy.

12:17

Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)

- -

We must show solidarity and support the young Iranians in seeking democratic rights, and we must protect those such as journalists and those within the BBC World Service Radio who are working to ensure that there is information which can be life saving in times of crisis. Can the Minister update the House on the status of BBC Persia service? I think we all supported the emergency support for there being radio provision at a time of internet blackouts.

Can the Minister update us as to the availability of information for the Iranian civilian population? We must also ensure this time that joint British joint nationals are protected. Can the Minister update us on what consular support may continue to be available? I do support the government's actions on making sure that our diplomats are protected, but what kind of consular support will be ongoing and in extreme circumstances, especially for victims who are young women who are being particularly targeted? These benches believe that there does need to be a safe and legal route for asylum, potentially, which we do not currently have.

Any government which has religious morality police is one in which instinctively liberals are wary of, but one which uses its organs of state to be repressive, to regress, repress, to imprison and torture peaceful protesters, target young women and murder. Those simply wanting a say on who governs them needs to be condemned in the strongest terms. The civilians in Iran are also having to grapple with unreliable and contradictory information from President Trump from the United States.

As I mentioned, I support the UK precautionary actions on its diplomatic staff within Iran and indeed on those within Qatar. But I have not heard so far on advice for those within Baghdad and Basra in Iraq. Having frequently visited the border of Iran in that area, we I know that any impact, any turmoil in Iran will have an impact in that area. So if the Minister could update on our advice for southern Iraq, that would be helpful. But as we have seen just yesterday on Venezuela, President Trump is happy to work with autocrats as long as they are his autocrats.

And it doesn't offer much faith to liberal governance. And for those protesters. Can the Minister assure us that the British government wants to see open, fair, democratic governance within Iran, not simply a regime which will offer oil rights to one of our allies? And finally, on sanctions, which we support and we will support the government enhancing the work even further. But we do not support the lack of a prescription of the IRGC. In October, when we discussed the Iran country regulations, I pointed out a loophole, and I will add one today, which I hope the Minister might respond to.

Our sanctions are on individuals and in trade and goods, but they do not cover intermediaries or brokers or those who facilitate funds to the religious police or the IRGC. Those sanctions are not under the human rights regime. They are under trade regimes. The human rights regimes can be expanded rapidly to ensure that those facilitating human rights abuses can also be covered. So in considering, I know the Minister will say that she will not comment, but can she comment on the fact that we are open to considering the human rights regime for sanctions, not just trade sanctions, but that is catered for under the countrywide? And the second loophole is that the lack of prescription for the IRGC means that those who provide support or provide financial assistance to the IRGC are also outwith scope of UK actions.

I hope the Minister will agree that if there are any loopholes we must close them.

12:22

Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Labour)

- -

Frontbenches about the. are taking to the streets at considerable risk to themselves and risking their lives, and in many cases that we know of so far, sacrificing their lives because they wish to live in freedom, and they have every right to express this through protest as they are, and it is met with dismay and shock. And I think the more that communications do become possible at the moment, we know that there are around. We think we know that an estimates for around 2000 dead and around 10,000 are being detained.

It's expected that when more is known and communications become more possible, that that those numbers may well increase. We've made the UK has made statements alongside France and Germany and others. We stay very closely in contact with us, with the US and other allies and partners. We have withdrawn UK based embassy staff for obvious reasons, and this inevitably limits considerably the assistance, the consular assistance that we're able to provide to UK nationals. We've advised for some time against all travel to Iran and the assistance that we will be able to provide should anybody there get into difficulty or need support is it's incredibly limited.

We do advise that those there make plans to leave. It's very difficult if they want, particularly if they wish to leave over land, because we advise against all travel to many of those neighbouring regions as well. I'm asked about personnel in Qatar. I don't know the answer to that. I can find out and I'm very happy to update the house on that. Should that be appropriate. On the issue of sanctions, we are actively considering what next steps we need to take on sanctions, and noble Lords will notice the difference in that comment than the one they usually receive.

But I'm unable to say any more about that, and we are considering measures in respect of prescription like measures in respect of the IRGC. Jonathan Hall is noble Lords will know has recently reviewed this. I'm advised that there is a need to make amendments to the legal framework that's available, because our current prescription measures are the legislation is designed not to deal with state backed entities. So that would need some some amendment. But I think it's it's I hinted at that the other day.

And I think it's just important to be clear about where we are on that. On wider travel advice, we would encourage people to constantly monitor the advice on the FCDO website because there is every chance that this may well be revised, but those decisions are taken very, very quickly and the the information is, is almost instantly available to the public. And on the future vision for Iran, I think this is a really important question, and our vision is entirely centred on the fact that it is for the people of Iran to make their own choice about how they wish to be governed.

That is not something that they have at the moment, but I think it's not for the United Kingdom to say what that the government, government of Iran ought to comprise of and who that ought to be. And different people in this House, I'm sure, will have very strongly held views about that. But from the government's perspective, our principle that will guide us is that it is for the people of Iran to make that choice. My Lord.

12:26

Lord Anderson of Swansea (Labour)

- -

My noble friend, agreed, teaches that the regime of the mullahs will probably only be toppled when elements of the security forces join the protests and other elements of the regime. Is there any evidence at all that that is happening in today's Iran?

12:26

Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Labour)

- -

12:27

Baroness Coussins (Crossbench)

- -

My Lords, could the noble Lady, the Minister, say whether any additional security and protection is being made available here to people working for the BBC Persian Service who were already being subject to harassment and worse, and who are now expected to be on the receiving end of worse. Yeah.

12:27

Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Labour)

- -

I mean, it's a really good point and I think it's often overlooked the, the, the danger that those journalists doing that vital work are exposed to. And yes, of course, we keep them, their safety and security under constant review. And I would just like to pay tribute to the work that the World Service does, but that that group of journalists and I have met some of them that, you know, it's tremendous and it's vital, particularly at a time like this.

12:27

Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)

- -

If the noble Lord, Lord Alison is right and there's unlikely to be any internal pressure to bring to achieve regime change in Iran, the only thing that will achieve it will be outside military intervention. Does the government support that, and is it likely to happen? happen?

12:28

Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Labour)

- -

Well, I'm going to I've obviously we all have opinions about that, but I think it's probably better that I don't speculate about that kind of intervention at this point. My Lords.

12:28

The Lord Bishop of Gloucester (Bishops)

- -

As I said earlier this week, Iranian Christians across our Iranian Christians across our churches are deeply distressed and not being able to have contact with their loved ones in Iran. I suspect that in the coming months, we are going to see more Iranians arriving on our beaches. I just wonder what His Majesty's Government is doing to prepare for this and be forward thinking in the stance which will be adopted regarding welcome and hospitality.

12:29

Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Labour)

- -

Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Well, we clearly advise anybody not to make that dangerous journey across the channel. And it's this across the channel. And it's this government's intention that we reduce to zero the number of people who are doing that. People should make that. That's not the right way to to reach this country and and in the need of asylum. The issue around communications is incredibly important. And we are talking to other countries about what we may be able to do to enable access to internet or telephone communications, because it's just not just because we need to know what's happening on the ground.

But as she says, it's so vital for people who are intensely concerned about their loved ones and others in their community.

12:29

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (Crossbench)

- -

Can I press the Minister a little further on the I give way. >> Young people from Iran fleeing from their lives, from coming to this country on a small boat. I entirely agree, but Lord Purvis asked and I didn't hear the minister's answer. What are we going to do to provide some safe and legal way for them to come? Some of them, particularly those who have been educated in this country, been to British universities now facing being shot on the streets, might very well want to come here.

We should be proud to receive them. Yeah.

12:30

Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Labour)

- -

The noble, noble Lord is right. And there are many who who have lived here, worked here, been educated here, as he says. But it isn't right that we encourage people to to take dangerous journeys. And I know that that's not what he would wish us to do. And we don't have a formal, safe route situation at the moment in regards to Iran. And we're actually not seeing large numbers of people fleeing the country. This stage obviously will just we will keep a close watch on this.

And if we do need to change stance and of course we can.

12:31

Lord Cashman (Non-affiliated)

- -

My Lords, just just to reiterate the point, there are no safe legal routes from Iran to reach this country. So I would urge the Minister to look sympathetically at no matter how somebody reaches the safety of the United Kingdom, if they're from Iran, and I would argue other countries, but in this instance, if they're from Iran, let us give them the gift of asylum and sanctuary and consider their claims.

12:31

Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Labour)

- -

We do consider their claims. And as he says, there are many countries, several countries in the world where life is incredibly dangerous and people do feel the need to to seek refuge sometimes in the United Kingdom. And we will consider their claims fairly and in line with all of our established decision making. But I think it is. It is important to understand that this this country does take its responsibilities and its duty to provide asylum and protection seriously to those in desperate need.

And but what I don't want to do is to say anything that could be interpreted as encouragement to people to fall under the fall into the arms of people traffickers, or take those to often deadly journeys, particularly across the sea.

12:32

Lord Polak (Conservative)

- -

My Lord. that I listened very carefully to what she said about prescription, and she talked about state backed entities. And I'm also glad that the noble Lord Lord Hanson is in his place here, because it was the same argument used in relation to Hezbollah and in Lebanon. And they said at the time that Hezbollah were part of the Lebanese government and Heiho Hezbollah were prescribed. So I'm sure that you've got that in your mind. But I want to follow up on Lord Purvis.

Lord Purvis was absolutely right about the. And perhaps an example of what the noble Lord was alluding to is that the reports that the IRGC have used to UK registered cryptocurrency exchanges to move about $1 billion since 2023, evading international sanctions in the process. So can the noble Lady comment on these reports, and also, what steps is HMG taking to stop the UK being used as a as a clearing house for Iran's terrorist thugs?

12:33

Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Labour)

- -

Well, the I mean, I agree with his description, of course, and I think that the IRGC has been sanctioned, but we're being encouraged to go further with prescription. As I've explained, we asked Jonathan Hall to look at this. He has recommended that we take certain measures that we may need to legislate for. We're looking closely at it. Obviously, we don't announce these sorts of decisions ahead of time because it diminishes their their impact potentially. But I think what I've said today does nudge things along in the direction that he would he would wish us to do, but I'm unable to make further commitments today.

And I think he will understand why.

12:34

Lord Craig of Radley (Crossbench)

- -

Lord Shipley Trump. >> Has made a number of possible suggestions about what he might or might not do in dealing with Iran. might not do in dealing with Iran. Have those been shared with our government, and has our government had any opportunity to propose alternatives or agree with the president? What he presently has in mind?

12:34

Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Labour)

- -

noble Lords will know that we were not involved in the measures that the United States took a few months ago. There are constant conversations between the United Kingdom and US counterparts on this and many other issues. I don't think it's right for me to answer directly the question that he puts, other than to assure him that those that that communication is good and it's constant, and we raise all the things that noble Lords would expect us to raise.

12:35

Lord Hannay of Chiswick (Crossbench)

- -

The noble Lady, the Minister be give us some idea of the FCDO analysis and whether this demonstrates that this latest outburst of demonstrations, entirely legitimate demonstrations, met with extreme violence, are more serious and more far reaching and more widespread in the country than any that we have previously seen, and that they are extremely unlikely to be the last ones, even if the peak of this particular set of demonstrations may be passed. Now a briefly.

So can we focus a little bit our thoughts for the future on making it clear to the people of Iran that if they were able to have a government which could meet international obligations, whether it's on nuclear or on human rights or other matters, then Iran would be a welcome member of the international community. And many of the problems that they are facing could be addressed in a positive manner. And does she not agree that making that clear is part of an overall approach to how to handle an important country in the Middle East? East?

12:36

Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Labour)

- -

The analysis that I've seen does suggest that this current situation has peaked, but I our interpretation of that, and I suspect this would be shared across the house, is that that is not any diminution in the desire of the the protesters to see an improvement in their situation and their ability to live in freedom. It's because so many are losing their lives, and it's a decision to stay at home because of fear. And I think how this how this is going to progress, nobody really knows.

But there is no doubt, as he he says, that these protests have been far more wide ranging than that which we have seen previously. Our position in relation to Iran would clearly change should there be a regime that enables us, the population, to live in freedom? We are slightly mindful. Well, noble Lords know because we've discussed this previously. We do take into account the fact that the regime in Iran weaponizes things that we say in order to stack up the false narrative that they purport that these protests are in some way orchestrated by external forces.

Clearly they're not. But we do need to take that into account. And we do have British nationals being held in Iran as well. And we don't want to to do things that would further jeopardise their situation. But I do agree with him that this does look and feel very different to that which we've seen before. And I think that that perception will only increase once communication becomes possible again.

12:38

Lord Dholakia (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Lord Faulks.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That they will consider. The Minister has indicated that they Minister has indicated that they will consider application for asylum from Iranian citizens wishing to leave that particular wishing to leave that particular country. The embassy in Iran has now now, now closed. What now now, now closed. What particular method are you going to use to be able to make this possible for them to make formal possible for them to make formal application to come to the United Kingdom? Second thing is, Mrs.

Rajavi came out with ten points plan in terms of established democratic non religious government in Iran. It has received considerable support from members of Parliament in this country and rest of the world. Would she take into account that the dynasty has an interest in assuming power, but to be very careful that that power is not vested in a person which was deposed some years ago? Yeah.

12:39

Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Labour)

- -

I mean, I, I do I need to repeat what I've said. I think about the future. It should be for the people of Iran to determine, not the UK government. On the issue of asylum claims and the closure of the embassy. I understand what the noble Lord is saying, but our first priority, and this is always this is always difficult, is to our UK staff who are based in Tehran. And that's a long established way of working.

We have to look after those for whom we are directly responsible. So that does make support for others in Tehran and Iran more difficult. We understand that. That's why these decisions are not taken lightly. But we did have to do that in order to secure their safety. their safety.

12:40

Lord Dubs (Labour)

- -

My Lords, given given the strong possibility that many Iranians will seek to flee for safety from their murderous regime, I wonder if the best approach by this government would be to have a united European approach to asylum seekers, so we could all take our share of responsibility for those Iranians that make their way to Europe seeking safety. Yeah.

12:40

Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Labour)

- -

Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I think I don't think there's anything really to disagree with there. I think there does need to be greater cooperation internationally, not least in Europe, around support for refugees and making sure that journeys are taken safely and people are not exploited. And worse along the way, which is all too often what we see happen.

12:41

Lord Leigh of Hurley (Conservative)

- -

There is a compelling case for >> There is a compelling case for prescribing IRGC. What possible reason is there for the government to delay in outlawing a terrorist organisation that threatens security, both at home and abroad? These are not my words. These are the words of a frontbench Labour spokesman in opposition on the 29th of November 2023. What's changed? Well, one thing that's changed is that we don't have an embassy anymore in Tehran, and that was given as one of the principal reasons why we did not prescribe IRGC, not least because various partners wanted us to have a presence in Tehran.

So now that things have changed, and given Labour's request and requirement for us to prescribe IRGC, will the government please reconsider?

12:41

Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Labour)

- -

Well, I think if you've been listening to my previous answers, he would understand exactly what the position of the government is and what we are doing to consider this at the moment.

12:42

Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)

- -

I have been listening to the >> I have been listening to the noble Ladies answers, and I don't think I've had an answer to the question as to whether the question as to whether the government actually supports regime change in Iran. I don't think she'll be betraying any confidences if she can clarify that issue.

12:42

Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Labour)

- -

Our position is that regime >> Our position is that regime change relies on the execution of the wishes of the people of Iran. the wishes of the people of Iran. And what we want to see is the people there being able to live as they are telling us they wish to in freedom, able to exercise their fundamental rights, one of which is to protest without fear. At the moment that is not possible. The regime there could take a different position, but we want to see a situation where those people can live without the fear that they currently exposed to.

12:43

Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)

- -

There's a lot of questions. The noble Lady quite understandably, can't answer. But the one question I asked the other day and she gave a rather strange response could she very simply just say thank you to Elon Musk for providing starlight into Iran?

12:43

Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Labour)

- -

I will thank Elon Musk now that he's made his platform free of the child abuse and some of the demeaning content that he was allowing to flourish on there up until, I believe, very first thing this morning, I'm glad that he's taken quite a sensible position now on that. So I am very happy to acknowledge what he has done to enable communications in the incredibly limited way that he has. But, you know, it does matter. And those, as I said, are very happy to say the other day that that access to social media and communications that is made possible, however that is done, is absolutely vital.

And we need to do whatever we need, whatever we can to improve that situation for people.

12:44

Legislation: Crime and Policing Bill – committee stage (day 10)

Lord Watts House to be again in Committee on the Crime and Policing Committee on the Crime and Policing Bill, Lord Hanson of Flint. >> Yes. >> My Lords, I beg to move that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into a committee upon the bill order. The question is, my Lords, that the House do now again resolve itself into a committee upon the Bill, as many are, as that will say, content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it. And we start, my Lords, with in clause one, two, four, amendment 371AA Lord Leigh of Hurley.

12:44

Lord Leigh of Hurley (Conservative)

- -

try and improve section one, two, four. It's worth reminding ourselves that this section seeks to amend section 12 of the Public Order Act, 1986. Curiously, that clause itself was amended in 2022 to allow the senior police officer to impose conditions on a march if it resulted in serious disruption to the life of the community in particular, where it results in a significant delay to the delivery of a time sensitive product to consumers, or disruption of access to any essential goods or services to be delivered to places of worship.

Somewhat strange that the the act was amended to allow goods and services to be delivered, but didn't mention disruption to the actual services themselves. So this section one, two, four is a great improvement and a great help. However, I wish to draw attention to the noble Lord, the Minister and and Lord Katz that the section is dependent upon the actions of a senior police officer who may, and the act is specific in the word, may decide to take action, with the emphasis being that he may not.

I guess he's not required so to do so. The Home Office will be still totally and solely reliant on the decisions of the senior police officer to be put into action. There is no override. Envisage that the Home Office can apply, and I believe that whilst I'm on my feet, this also applies to Lord Hanson's Amendment 37 two. Exactly the same point applies. It's again, a senior police officer may choose to do this, so I would suggest it does not deal with the problem that when complaints are made by by members of the public, politicians currently simply put their hands up and say it's nothing to do with us.

This is a police matter. And as we've seen in the West Midlands, we can't rely on the police in every instance to do their duty and act fairly. The risk of repeating myself. This is the third time I've raised this point in the debates on this bill, and in the previous two discussions, I haven't really had an answer from from the noble Lords Minister. In actual fact, I'm not expecting for them to answer it right now. What I'm asking is for a commitment to consider this point, reflect on it, possibly meet those with an interest in the matter, and for it to be addressed by the time of report.

So my amendments are needed so we can be sure that if protesters are banned from being near synagogues, they are stopped from simply heading towards Jewish faith schools and Jewish community centres. Of course, if my amendments protect schools and community centres of other faiths, then I would be absolutely delighted. So I hope these amendments will receive support from all sides of the House. Disappointingly, there isn't a bishop on the bench because, in my view, places of worship of all denominations need to be addressed by this bill.

So make no mistake, my Lords, Jewish people are leaving the UK as they no longer feel safe, particularly with the marches threatening to come back. I was in Israel last week on a parliamentary conservative Friends of Israel trip, and Israelis were asking me, is it safe to be in London or Manchester anymore? Business people, academics, scientists, tourists, clerics are all nervous about coming to the UK. And as we know, by the way, the marches in Westcliff on Sea led to synagogue attendance falling, which cannot be acceptable.

So we now need to be ahead of the protesters, not behind them. We need to protect faith schools and community centres. And indeed, there have already been protests outside a Jewish community centre. There's one called Jw3, which I support, had a protest outside it on October the 21st, October 24th, 27th, and there were unpleasant and aggressive slogans, and the police were powerless to move them on. Ironically, they were protesting at an event which was a conference to talk about future peace progress with Palestinian representatives speaking.

My amendments attempt to pre-empt what we fear will happen after clause 124 is passed. I have the support of the Board of Deputies for British Jews. I have support from the Jewish Leader Council, where I declare I serve as a vice President and I have support from the Community Security Trust. All of these organisations would urge these amendments to be passed. Now. As Lord Walney said the other day, these proposals do not conflict with anything the McDonald review might say, and the government needs no persuasion of this because the government has itself proposed clause one, two, four and amendment 372, all of which would ordinarily be covered by the McDonald report.

So there is no reason why we have to wait for his report to put through the proposed amendments. I hope that by Report stage, the noble Lord Minister will be able to signal his acceptance of these amendments because we will keep pressing them. I'm sure the government will want to play its part in trying to dial down the anti-Israel and consequently anti-Semitic febrile activities and mood. In my opinion, it's most unfortunate the government chose to recognise the State of Palestine when it did.

This risked giving the organisations of protests the message that they're aggressive and unpleasant actions were being rewarded. The government now has an opportunity to try and show some evenhandedness. I beg to move.

12:51

Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)

- -

Amendment proposed clause 1 to 4, >> Amendment proposed clause 1 to 4, page 151. Line 18 after worship, insert faith, school or faith

**** Possible New Speaker ****

community centre. My Lord. I support these amendments for the reasons that have been mentioned. Lists are always difficult because wherever you draw the line, there may be another group that would be added, but I think it's quite a sensible pair of additions to the definition of where this bill should apply. It's difficult, not least of which we've seen this week complaints about what's happening in Notting Hill, an Israeli restaurant which seems to be having a protest directly outside it for no other reason than it has to be Israeli.

That doesn't seem to be anything to do with the people who are attending it. It's nothing to do with the people who run the place other than the Israel connection. So no matter where we draw the line on the list, there may always be others. But I think if we can't protect children and we can't protect where minority groups and faith groups gather to share their faith, then probably our society would be worse for it. It will make the police's job a little easier by providing this definition, while others may argue to add more to the list.

I think these are two founded. founded.

12:52

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords, I share the concern that's been expressed by the noble Lord Lord Leigh of Hurley that senior police officers do not always act as they should, and I've expressed that concern in these proceedings on Tuesday in particular, to be rather rebuffed by the noble Lord Minister. And it is not, as I completely assure the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe, that I do not believe that generally police officers or senior police officers in particular, can be relied upon to act in the best interests of their community.

But I do urge the government to beware of legislating in the confident expectation that they always will. So I think Lord Lee's reservations are justified as the noble Lord, Lord Lord Leigh of Hurley explained. Clause one two four. As unamended permits a senior police officer to impose restrictions where processions or protests are in the vicinity of a place of worship, and may intimidate reasonable persons of reasonable firmness and deter them and do deter them from attending a place of worship for the purpose of carrying out religious activities, or from actually carrying out such activities.

And as Lord Lee wood has explained, the amendments would add faith schools or faith community centres to the institutions where conditions might be imposed. My Lords, we went on Tuesday through considerable argument about the purposes of clause one, two, four, and there was a great deal of discussion about protecting synagogues on successive Saturdays. And I do believe that Lord Hogan-Howe has raised an important point that communities gather together and worship or carry out religious activities, religious celebrations in areas quite apart from synagogues.

After all, Bondi Beach is not a synagogue. It's a public beach where Hanukkah celebrations had been organised and were being attended by Jewish communities. And I add my voice to Lord Hogan-Howe and to Lord Leigh of Hurley that our faith communities need protecting wherever they are gathering for the purposes of their faith. But with that said, I certainly agree, as does the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe with the extension of this power to cover religious activities at faith schools or faith community centres, that would be a proportionate protection and well defined.

And I make the point that faith schools are of particular sensitivity because they include they are for principally young people of given faith who may be damaged psychologically for life by being attacked in or in the vicinity of those schools. And the same goes for Faith centre, faith community centres, where Sunday school activities or religious education may be taken place. This is, of course, of particular importance to the Jewish community in the present climate. In the light of the horrific attacks that there have been about, which we've heard a great deal.

But it's also very important that Muslim faith schools and community centres should be protected as well, in the presence of considerable xenophobia and Islamophobia. My Lords, we need these protections. We need to combat the fear that is now beginning to permeate the whole of our national life, and has a really unpleasant and damaging effect and destroys community cohesion, national spirit, and the tolerance for which this country has long been famous.

12:56

Lord Massey of Hampstead (Conservative)

- -

Here, here. >> You can, I can I rise also to support Lord Lee's amendment and to. support Lord Lee's amendment and to. And just to add to the dialogue by saying that we are becoming desensitised now to violent, harassing and intimidatory protests and. The the ideal of of having local senior police officers being in charge of restricting these protests are becoming much more risky, and therefore the need to legislate has become much more urgent.

So I would just endorse the comments of Lord Lee and others in supporting this amendment.

12:57

Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, the amendments in this group, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lee of Hurley and spoken to him so powerfully today, address an important gap in the bill as currently drafted. They ensure that faith schools and community centres are included within the definition of religious sites for the purpose of restrictions on protests. These amendments, at their core, are about protecting the ability of people to practice their faith freely and without intimidation. Places of worship are more than simply buildings used for ceremonial services.

They are frequently part of a wider religious campus that often includes schools, halls, and community sites. And it is wrong, even if inadvertent, to draw an artificial distinction between a synagogue, a church, or a temple and their adjoining faith school or community centre. Clause one two, four itself. And these amendments do not seek to ban protests, nor do they diminish the right to peaceful assembly. Instead, they allow the police to impose proportionate conditions where protests in the vicinity of a religious site may intimidate people, the reasonable firmness and deter them from accessing or carrying out religious activities.

And we had a long and vigorous debate on Tuesday on on the clause itself. It is, of course, as many said on Tuesday, crucial that the test is rooted in reasonableness and necessity, and is not used as a guide for police forces to stifle people's free speech and right to protest. But that self-evidently must be counterbalanced against people's safety, and particularly that of children, which is where these these amendments are so apposite. This is particularly important given the heinous terrorist attack that took place at Heaton Park Synagogue, and the aftermath of that attack saw armed police being required to stand guard at Jewish schools and community centres, and that this had to happen should shame us all in a civilised country.

Of course, no one should have to live in such fear. Not only that, in recent years there has been a troubling rise in protests which target religious communities in ways that stray well from robust political expression into sheer intimidation and faith. Schools and community centres are, of course, where children and families in particular gather, who should never be subject to threatening activity simply due to their faith. They're often places of education, as we've heard from noble Lord Lord Marks.

They're places of leisure, they're places of play, all in a religious setting. So with that said, in my submission that these amendments, in the name of my noble friend, are a welcome step, and I hope the noble Lord, the Minister, plays them very close regard and look forward to hearing his response. forward to hearing his response.

13:01

Lord Katz (Labour)

- -

My Lords, I'm grateful for all who have contributed. important debate on the amendments that have been tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, and which seek to extend the power for police to restrict protests near places of worship to the faith schools and faith community centres and us, and was, as I said, tabled by noble Lord Lord Leigh of Hurley and supported by noble Lord Hogan-howe and Lord Massey of Hampstead, and also my, my, my, the opposition frontbench by Lord Cameron.

My Lords, I acknowledge the problem that the wider problem, society problem that Lord Leigh of Hurley very powerfully described in in moving the amendment and indeed I think it's fair to say he acknowledged the hence the hence the need for clause one, two, four and the inclusion of clause one, two, four in the Bill. We are, as government, very aware of the problem and indeed in the discussion that we had around the previous mega group on public order in on on Tuesday evening, there was there was some assertions by some noble Lords speaking that synagogues aren't impacted by marches or protests, and I'm neglected at that point in time.

But this is an opportunity

Feed Live - Click to view video

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page