Holocaust Memorial Bill

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 21st January 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Deech]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 1B in lieu—

1B: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Learning Centre purpose
The main purpose of any Learning Centre must be the provision of education about the Holocaust and antisemitism.””

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, my purpose in speaking is to try to rescue the central plank of what remains of this memorial. The Lords amendment stated that the sole purpose of the learning centre must be the Holocaust and antisemitism. I have retained pretty much the same wording. No alternative was put forward in the Commons and no reason given for the rejection other than that it is inappropriate. But having listened to Ministers, I can see that a vision of the purpose of the learning centre is emerging that is much more valuable than what has been suggested in the past.

In the past, the promoters have been asked repeatedly what their intent is for the planned learning centre, and they have prevaricated, sometimes suggesting that it will be all about Nazi genocides and at other times that it would include many genocides and wars, including in Rwanda, Serbia, Cambodia, Darfur and Bosnia. Of course, originally, the learning centre was planned to be about the British perspective on the Holocaust, which is a rather niche subject and would not be very educational for those who know nothing about it.

“Holocaust” and “genocide” have become general words of disapproval without definition. Throwing them around robs the Holocaust of its specificity, relativises it and diminishes its lessons for the future. It was quite different in origin and execution. The Nazis systematically set about eliminating 6 million children, men and women. That history is a warning to future generations, as we see increasing antisemitism orchestrated today. If a purpose of the memorial and learning centre is not defined as we suggest, there is a risk that it could be put to other, less effective ends.

It seems the Government agree. The point of difference between us is this: if the Government are happy to give assurances about the learning centre, why not enshrine them in the Bill? Ten or 20 years down the line, any assurances given today will be forgotten and the interested parties today will no longer be in their positions or even alive. Without this amendment, reference to the learning centre’s key purpose, the Holocaust and antisemitism, is excluded from the Holocaust Memorial Bill.

All Governments recently have insisted that their funding of Holocaust remembrance in this country may not be limited to Jews; it always has to include other tragic situations. But the Roma have their own memorial in Newcastle, and there is a memorial dedicated to LGBT victims at the National Memorial Arboretum. Only the Jewish memorial has to be diffused and hence deprived of the power that it should have.

Focusing on the Nazi victims makes the centre about the Nazis, Germany and the Second World War—an historical event in the past, not something enduring today—but the Holocaust’s origins go back more than 2,000 years and its roots are still alive today. It is a continuum, not a past event. Including other genocides reduces whatever lesson might be learned to just platitudes about hatred and tolerance, which was rightly and forcefully condemned by the cellist and survivor, Anita Lasker-Wallfisch, at the Select Committee.

It is imperative that antisemitism be addressed, not fudged, because it is today that antisemitism is flourishing. A learning centre has to be about Jewish lives today, not just deaths. It is so relatively easy to mourn the dead, but so much harder to understand the living.

We objectors want a proper-sized museum setting the Holocaust in context, as the late Lord Sacks called for. There has been no consultation on any of that.

The Chief Rabbi has rightly called for Holocaust memorialisation not to be politicised, but that is exactly what is happening now. On the part of the Opposition, it has been an attempt to put some substance into the campaign for British values. On this Government’s watch, sadly, Jews are constantly threatened. We know the details —the police’s uneven treatment; welcoming an Egyptian dissident who wants to kill Jews; failing to prosecute people who spout foul hate speech; teachers, doctors, pop stars, lecturers and students getting away with calls for violence against Jews; treating their ally, Israel, as an enemy; and the one-sided recognition of Palestine.

I suspect the Government think that by announcing a Holocaust memorial something will be achieved, but there is not a shred of evidence from the half-dozen existing British memorials and the hundreds around the world that they have any effect on antisemitism. No one has ever done an impact assessment. It is a case of easy sympathy for dead Jews and an excuse for not protecting the living.

All the benefits of a learning centre, as recommended in the Prime Minister’s 2015 commission report, have now been lost. They are all gone. There will be no lecture hall, no learning hub, no professorship, no endowment, no teacher training, no overhaul of Holocaust education. Its location is within a gunman’s range from the bridge, the river and the Millbank windows. To lose even the fundamental essence of the project is unacceptable.

The current assurances about the learning centre are vague, unsustainable and unenforceable. Assurances were requested, and some were rejected, at the conclusion of the Select Committee on the Bill. They are all now forgotten. Unless there is a proper planning application, there will be no chance of consideration of what was agreed. I am asking the Government for more than assurances—something much more concrete that will last down the years. I am asking for legislative support for the aims of the 2015 report to ensure that the core purpose of the learning centre is agreed and maintained. This simple amendment would show the public that the Government have the right aim and the courage of their convictions. I beg to move.

[Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, for his patient and constructive engagement on this matter, and the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, who before him was dealing with this Bill and tried to work things through with equal dedication. As the Minister knows, my preference would have been to have the purpose set in law, for the reasons that my noble friend Lady Deech so eloquently set out just now, but it became clear that I was not going to persuade the Government of that case, and it was also clear that there was a strong desire, which I shared, to move forward with cross-party consensus.

I welcome the Minister’s assurances and, in particular, the fact that the Government are committed to ensuring that the learning centre will be focused exclusively on the Holocaust and antisemitism, and that there will be no deviation from this purpose. Having gone through this exercise, at least now, as my noble friend Lady Deech said, we have some clarity about what the purpose of this learning centre should be. No deviation is a key commitment. The reason for insisting on it is not because some of us do not understand that people will and should draw broader lessons from the Holocaust and antisemitism, but what we have seen in recent years is that too often the broader lessons take centre stage, while the distinctively unsettling features of the Holocaust and antisemitism end up being diluted or lost behind feel-good bromides. Avoiding this was the main driving concern for this amendment.

The other concern is that the memorial and the learning centre might become the focal point for political gesturing about the Middle East and anti-Israel protest. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, agrees with us on these concerns and is very keen to address them. I think the commitment to have the purpose clearly and specifically enshrined in the governing documents, while not as good as having it in law, is important, and we need to follow that through. I also welcome his commitment just now to consult on those governing documents. It might perhaps help if he can tell us a bit more about the process that might be envisaged about the contents of the documents and about how Parliament will be kept informed. In particular, it would be useful to have drafts published in advance so that people who have an interest in these matters, and perhaps the House, will have an opportunity for debate and scrutiny. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I hope that it will provide further reassurance to those who, like my noble friend Lady Deech, continue to have reservations.

--- Later in debate ---

I urge the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, to withdraw her Motion. Let us go forward united and ensure that this memorial is delivered.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, I yield to no one in my admiration for the Minister, whose eloquence and understanding is very touching and altogether praiseworthy.

I have just two small points to make. There need not have been any delay. There need not even have been a delay if the Government had accepted the amendment. Much has been spoken about delay. This memorial is not for the survivors; it is for future generations. We are not going to rush something through so that people who are now 90 or 100 will live to see it. They already have other memorials.

I have heard the noble Lords, Lord Leigh and Lord Wolfson, on the definitional problems. Whatever you express, there are going to be definitional problems, which have been exacerbated in the past few years—because despite what the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, said, there has been all this talk about Darfur, Bosnia, and other genocides and so on, and it is only now, under the leadership of the Minister, that we have some clarity.

I felt I had to drive this forward for the sake of my parents, my grandparents and all the others who are looking down, who would never forgive me if I did not push this as far as I can to get a memorial that honours them—which I have doubts about, frankly. But I have done everything I can within my power for their sakes, because I know very well—as a child, they told me—what they went through. I have done every last thing I can.

I can see no point in calling a vote now, and I will withdraw the Motion, but I insist on continuing for their sakes and for all the other families, some of whom are in this Chamber. We must get something that honours them and protects today’s Jews. I will not give up on that, but I withdraw the Motion, and I thank the Minister.

Motion A1 withdrawn.

Palestinian Refugees

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Deech]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the status of Palestinian refugees following the recognition of the state of Palestine.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)]

The status of Palestinian refugees is a final status issue to be resolved through negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. Recognition of the State of Palestine does not in any way alter the status of Palestinian refugees. The UK continues to support the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, UNRWA, and its vital work delivering humanitarian assistance and services to Palestinian refugees. This year we have provided £27.5 million to UNRWA.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister accept that either Palestine is a real state and should deal with its own people or it is not, and recognition was a falsity? Since the UK recognises Palestine as a state, its citizens living in their state cannot, in principle, be refugees. Indeed, all the other Palestinians around the world are, or should be, citizens of that state and no longer stateless. It is UNRWA that is the problem. There is much new, reliable evidence that UNRWA is permeated with Hamas officials. UNRWA continues to inflate the number of refugees instead of settling them, and teaches them that they will remain refugees until they return to what they believe were their homes in what is now Israel, with the aim of obliterating the state. There will be no future for Gaza unless UNRWA is dismantled, wrapped up with the UNHCR, and the concept of Palestinian refugees in the West Bank and Gaza should disappear.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that question. As I have said, the UK’s recognition of the State of Palestine does not alter the status of Palestinian refugees, and the question of refugee status remains a final status issue to be resolved through negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. We are deeply concerned to hear the accusations about UNRWA staff involved in 7 October 2023, and we welcome its commitment to fully investigate allegations against its employees and the continued implementation of the Colonna report’s recommendations to ensure neutrality and integrity.

Gaza Humanitarian Foundation

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

At the moment, it is an idea. We have seen no evidence that it will go forward. However, the noble Lord is right that humanitarian principles of delivering aid must be consistent across every area in which that aid is being delivered. Today, we are convening the UN Security Council in New York—it is probably meeting now—to look at what can be done to deal with the appalling humanitarian situation in Gaza.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, the simple, straightforward solution is for the hostages to be released. We can see with our own eyes that the hostages are among the least well-fed people in Gaza. Why are the Government always so quick to believe Hamas and United Nations organisations? Why do they not share the widespread scepticism about Hamas, which is stockpiling the aid and preventing lorries going in? Why do they not note how UNRWA has been infiltrated by Hamas?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I hope that the noble Baroness heard one of my first comments, which was about the priority of getting the hostages out and released. Recently, Eli Sharabi was released; he was a shadow of his former self. There is a lot of suffering—by the hostages who have been kidnapped, the families of those who were killed on 7 October and the people of Gaza. The crucial thing is to get the aid in and the hostages out. Only if there is a ceasefire can we then talk about the future and see what else can be done for a long-standing peace.

Middle East Update

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am afraid I cannot give my noble friend an up-to-date report but, as she knows, I have worked with a number of noble friends and across the House to ensure that community-building efforts that have been incredibly successful, particularly in terms of developing youth employment and developing enterprises, all help contribute to building that peaceful coexistence. But unless we address that fundamental issue about the situation in Gaza, we will be unable to make the sort of progress that she and I both desire.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, it is a sad coincidence that this Statement is followed by one on India-Pakistan. Both situations are ones where this country was responsible for dividing land in a way that was unsuitable and crude, which has led to trouble ever since, and to migration and displacement.

As far as recognition of Palestine goes, I am afraid that India-Pakistan is a sad instance of how recognition does not solve a historic, millennia-old division between two peoples. I do not have a solution, but I will say this: over 100 other countries already recognise Palestine; it has made no difference whatever. I do not know why, but it does not make a difference because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, said, it takes more than that. If there is to be recognition and peace, it has to start with education, of the Palestinian population in particular. UNRWA teaches children to hate. It teaches them that one day they will return and overrun Israel. Until the Palestinians accept history—that there is no going back and no right of return—no amount of recognition, especially coming from this country with its particular responsibility, will help. I call on the Minister to dial down the temperature by talking about peaceful education and by not always challenging Israel on everything it says, in particular in relation to the figures of casualties, where Hamas’s word is always taken and Israel’s is not.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I have written to the noble Baroness on a couple of occasions in response to the Written Questions she has asked on the casualty numbers. I hear what she says, but I think everyone in this Chamber understands that there have been huge casualties and there is certainly a humanitarian crisis. But I also agree with her. I think noble Lords will appreciate that I have been very committed to supporting the existence of the State of Israel for many years. I remain of that view, but for me, the State of Israel’s security is best supported through an arrangement where we see two states living side by side. We have divided communities now. My noble friend Lady Berger is also committed to a two-state solution; that is the way forward. She is also right that we need to ensure that we can take action to build that community cohesion and support, and education is certainly vital to that. Sadly, at the moment the people and children of Gaza are not getting any education at all.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend on Amendments 91 and 94 and to extend them a bit. Titles are not trivial. I have been involved in this in a certain way, which I am coming to, for more than 10 years. Titles are property and they go back to feudal times. We cannot have two laws, one of total equality for people outside this House and another for those who are affected by the ability to sit and be addressed in this House. We all take a rather shallow course called Valuing Everyone; let us start, indeed, by valuing everyone.

This is what I want to move on to: I speak for hundreds of Dames who have husbands and dozens of noble Baronesses who have spouses. It is not a trivial matter that our spouses do not share our titles, whereas it works the other way around. I was in correspondence with Buckingham Palace about this a long time ago, having tried in this House. The Palace told me it was a matter of property and a very serious matter, and that only if Parliament willed it could titles be changed so there would be equality.

So, once more, I put in a plea. If someone is a Lord, of course their wife is a Lady, though I wonder why; it certainly ought to work the other way round if that is how it is. Likewise for Dames, because we cannot exempt ourselves from the equality that applies outside and not apply it in this House. Unfortunately, the last time I tried, I was undermined by the late, lamented Lady Trumpington, who told the House that, when she and her husband, whose name was Dr Barker, checked in to a hotel together, it gave them a frisson.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

This brought the House down—as it has done again today—and I lost my point. But it is a serious one: if we are going to share titles, although I am not sure that we should, it should work both ways.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, what a pleasure it is to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and, indeed, one half of our Green Party. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and I have known each other since we met on the slopes of Mount Sinai nearly 40 years ago. She knows how fond I am of her—she supplies my family with her lovely homemade jam—but, as always, I completely disagree.

She cared very much about the gendered amendments but not about the name of the House; I am exactly the other way around. It seems to me utterly bizarre that the Government should have a view on succession to titles. I get the argument of republicanism and I get that it is an irrational thing to have younger brothers inheriting before older sisters. But it is equally irrational to have a prejudice in favour of first-born children rather than younger children. In fact, the whole thing is irrational and cannot be justified wholly on logical grounds. If you start pulling at that thread, you very quickly end up with a French Revolution-style abolition of the entire shebang. If we want to do that, fine, but the idea that you can keep the titles but apply a Guardian public sector equality test to them seems to me extremely strange.

I speak in support of Amendment 97, standing in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Devon. I think I said at Second Reading that even the architecture of this Chamber is a link back to the old House of Lords: that it was in the minds of Pugin and Barry to recreate the idea of a throne room and a monarch taking the counsel of his bishops and barons. There is, I think, a thread in the make-up of this House that connects us back, certainly to the earliest House of Lords in the reign of Edward III and probably to the Magnum Concilium of which the noble Earl spoke; or, before that, even to the pre-Conquest witans—I think a Saxon king taking the counsel of his thanes and aldermen would have been doing something not unrecognisable to a Chamber that contains a partly hereditary element.

That thread is being snapped; the link is being sundered. It is being sheared in two, as the Fates were said to do with the thread of a man’s life, and we are being cut off from a part of our history and our constitutional inheritance. I am Tory enough to regret that, but I am Whig enough to recognise that there is something irrational about having an inherited element of a legislature. I wish we were replacing it with something better, as was originally the deal promised in 1998, but we have lost that argument and it is an argument for a different time.

I come back to the bizarre anomaly of having a House of Lords that does not contain any “lords”—as the word would have been understood for the previous 1,000 years. That seems a case of having our cake and eating it. If there are no lords of the traditional, recognised, aristocratic variety then by what virtue and on what basis do we continue to appropriate the name?

This question has been faced before. During the Cromwellian interregnum, the Lord Protector was always trying to bring the old aristocracy back into government. He wanted to sustain the legitimacy of his rule by returning to bicameralism. His problem was that none of the lords would agree to serve. If memory serves, there was one—the sixth Baron Eure, who was a parliamentary soldier who inherited his title when the fifth Baron Eure, who was a distant cousin of his and a royalist soldier, was killed on the battlefield at Marston Moor. He was the only lord, in the old sense, to serve in what came to be known, with spectacular banality, as the “other House”—hence the convention of how the two Chambers refer to one another that we have to this day.

If you do not have any lords, in the Cromwellian sense, do you not face exactly the same dilemma? We can probably do better than “the other House” as a title—we could call ourselves a senate—but it seems utterly extraordinary that we should pretend to the authority and legitimacy that comes from this very old institution when we have deliberately, and in contravention of promises made at the ballot box, torn that thread in two.

I would like an answer to this when Ministers come to respond. Let us please hear their defence of titles.

Israel and Palestine

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. We are continuing to work with Israel, the Palestinian Authority, the US and regional partners to build consensus on a post-conflict Gaza governance and security framework that supports the conditions, as he rightly said, for a permanent and sustainable peace. We have given the PA two posts to help support its work on this, and we will look towards doing even more as we move through the stages of the ceasefire agreement.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, has the Minister read the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, in this morning’s Times, where he points out that the time has come for the Palestinians to behave like all the millions or trillions of people displaced since the Second World War with the creation of new states? Does the Minister agree that the problem is UNRWA? The Arabs have to accept the existence of Israel and UNRWA must resettle refugees. It must get them settled in the countries in which they are living and make sure that they have full civil rights, so that their children grow up not to hate but to make a new life and take new opportunities in the countries where they are living, like all other refugees around the world.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I hear what the noble Baroness says, but, of course, many Palestinians are living in occupied territory. We want to ensure, through the peace process that has been agreed, that we work with all sides to bring them towards a consensus that will ensure the safety and security of Israel, as well as the safety and security of a Palestinian state. We must work towards that, and this agreement provides the basis to do so.

Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am a great admirer and fan of the BBC World Service and the soft power that it has exercised across the world for many years has been great. It was a great shame that the World Service was rolled up into the last funding settlement that was undertaken for the BBC. We are concerned about that and looking at it. I do not make any commitments to the noble Lord, but we certainly share his concern. That the vacuum has been filled by a Russian player adds to the concern that I would have. I also agree with him that it is important to have independent voices who are respected in the region.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister’s words are much appreciated, but does she agree with me that the hatred that has come about since 7 October, which has been widely commented on around the House, has to some extent been fed by the BBC? There have recently been two independent reports, one of which I co-signed, which pointed out in great detail mistakes and bias on the part of the BBC. There have been the most appalling statements on the BBC Arabic World Service by people who hate Israel. Does the Minister agree that it is time for an inquiry into the BBC’s coverage? For example, Jeremy Bowen casually reported that Israel had bombed a hospital. This soon turned out to be untrue, but that statement, which he never went back on, gave rise to more slaughter and hatred. It is time for an inquiry into the BBC’s impartiality on this issue.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will understand that I am not going to accede to her request for an inquiry, but I think that all news outlets have a duty and responsibility to the truth. One thing I have found difficult in the coverage of this conflict is its focus on the destruction and hurt that have happened; I would like to see some balance around the political efforts to reach a solution as well. That would help people to understand what the conflict is about. I think that many people watching the TV news are obviously horrified, upset and distraught by what they see, but there is no great understanding of the background to it and why things are happening. All news outlets have a duty and a responsibility to ensure that their reporting is accurate.

House of Lords: Composition

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord is being a little patronising in saying that I do not understand constitutional issues. I will be happy to reach consensus, where it is possible. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, a quarter of a century ago there was eventually a consensus that transitional arrangements would be made for the remaining hereditary Peers.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

Would the Minister use this opportunity to end another long-standing anomaly whereby the wives of Lords and Barons have the title “Lady”, which confuses them with those who have earned the title? This should end, or change so that our husbands, or the partners of women Peers, also get some sort of honorific title.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I think there are mixed views across the House about this issue—I have to say that Mr Smith might not appreciate having a title. It does seem an anomaly, although not one that overly concerns the House. However, I note the noble Baroness’s comments.

Iran and Israel

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Monday 15th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness. The Royal Navy is one of the top five in the world. Of course there is a need to defend our country and act co-operatively with other nations. The overall Ministry of Defence equipment plan for the next decade is £288 billion, including £41.5 billion for the Royal Navy. That will include a Dreadnought, Astute and AUKUS submarines, fleet support ships, ocean surveillance capability and Type 26, Type 31 and Type 32 frigates. As far as the RAF is concerned, the plan is that it should become increasingly a digitally empowered force. The future combat air system will provide us with sixth-generation fighter jet capability, building on what is currently provided by typhoons and the F35. We are in a close partnership with the Italian and Japanese Governments in relation to future fighter capacity.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, I would like the Minister to take the long view on this. First, in relation to Gaza, it must not be forgotten that this is happening against a history of nearly two millennia of persecution. There is no other people in the world who have been persecuted for so long and against whom there is a constant existential threat. Therefore, the priority in Gaza must be for Hamas to come out of the tunnels and hospitals and release the hostages if they have them, and then you get your ceasefire.

Secondly, with Iran—taking the long view—we seem to have forgotten the nuclear plan, the JCPOA. We have taken our eye off that. Iran is within minutes of getting nuclear capability and is mad enough to use it. We must return to sanctions. If the Government are not going to ban the IRGC, then at the very least visas should not be granted to those so-called clerics that go forwards and backwards between Tehran and London and foment trouble in London. So, please, let us remember the priorities in Gaza and, secondly, stop the flow of malevolent individuals into this country.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, there is much to be desired in what the noble Baroness says. As a historian and someone with a sensitivity to all the genius of human culture, of course I understand what she says about the experience of the Jewish people. It is clear that Hamas cannot remain in charge in Gaza: the British Government have made that clear, and the Foreign Secretary has said that it is a requirement.

On her important remarks on Iranian nuclear ambitions—if there be such, and the objective observer suggests that there might be—there is no credible civilian justification for enrichment at the levels that the IAEA has reported in Iran. The British Government remain determined that Iran must never develop a nuclear weapon. We are considering next steps with our international partners and we are committed to using all diplomatic tools available to ensure Iran never develops a nuclear weapon, including using the snapback mechanism if necessary. These matters, as I said earlier, must be carried forward in co-operation with our international allies, and that is our diplomatic objective.

Death of a Member: Lord Judge

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Thursday 9th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

My Lords, these Benches echo all that has been said so movingly about this remarkable and learned man, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. As has been expressed, I and others felt a deep sadness on hearing the news of his death.

On behalf of these Benches, I have stood and given tributes on a number of occasions and, each time, very poignantly for me, I followed Lord Judge. He was wise, kind, humble, gracious and, as has been said, he always had a twinkle in his eye. His life was one of devoted public service to the greater good, be it in the law or the courts, as President of the Queen’s Bench Division and later as Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, or as a Member of this House. He was a source of wisdom to me personally in my role as Anglican Bishop for HM Prisons. He would always greet me in the corridors with Shakespearean references to Gloucester. I will personally miss him.

As Convener of the Cross Benches he was a great friend of this Bench. Reference has been made to his speeches, not least on constitutional matters, and I hope that we will return to those so that we keep on listening to his words. As has been said, his interventions were always short; he would just stand up without any notes and he would always hit the nail on the head with just a few words. I said to him on numerous occasions, when I had spoken after him in debates, that I usually just wanted to say, “What he said”.

He contributed to a vast number of journals and books over his career, not least one entitled Christianity and Criminal Law, which brought theologians, lawyers, judges and historians together to discuss the Christian traditions of the law. He never shied away from addressing tricky issues and he often brought a fresh take to a problem of law. He was indeed ruthless, but always with that twinkle in his eye.

His insights and friendships will be greatly missed from all sides of the House. Our condolences go to his beloved family. May he rest in peace and rise in glory.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, my late noble and learned friend Lord Judge was, in my view, the judges’ judge, the Lords’ judge and the people’s judge. As judges’ judge, he championed the judiciary, filling a gap that we have sustained ever since the abolition of the old Lord Chancellor post. He kept up morale, not least mine. On my regular visits to him when I was as chair of the Bar Standards Board, he would say, “What’s the matter, Ruth?” As the Lords’ judge, he got to the essence of what we Lords should do and will always be remembered as the upholder of the rule of law by ensuring that parliamentary sovereignty held executive sovereignty in check. As the people’s judge, he followed in the footsteps of Lord Denning, Lord Bingham and Lord Mansfield, in reminding us that we are here to protect everyone from an overmighty executive. If only he were here to greet the first Lady Chief Justice.

[Baroness D'Souza (CB)]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, was a great man and a wise man. He was funny, tough and, as so many have said, extremely kind. He and I were in Oman together, about three or four years ago. At a formal meeting of the State Council, which is the Omani equivalent of this upper House, I was asked a question by one of its Members. It was a long and complicated question, in very rapid and totally incomprehensible English. I had no understanding or clue of what exactly I was being asked, but I floundered on until I was rescued by Igor. He swept down and, with his very graceful words, said, “Perhaps I may add”, which immediately made everything extremely clear. He will be missed immeasurably. Perhaps the best and most lasting tribute we in this House can give him is to challenge wherever and whenever we see Henry VIII powers.