Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Answer by Baroness Chapman of Darlington on 16 June (HL Deb col 140), what assessment they have made of the report by the US Department of State Steps Taken by the Palestinian Authority to Counter Incitement of Violence against Israelis and to Promote Peace and Coexistence with Israel, published in May; the report by Al-Hurriyah Radio on 3 June; and the statement by Guillaume Mercier of the EU Commission in November 2025 that the Palestinian Authority has continued to use and divert international funding to pay the families of Palestinian terrorists and their families.

Answered by Baroness Chapman of Darlington

Further to the answer provided on 13 November 2025 to Question HL11575, we continue to await the results of the forthcoming independent audit into the Palestinian Authority's welfare programme, and it remains crucial for them to deliver their ambitious and necessary 'National Program for Development and Reform' rapidly and in full. A reformed Palestinian Authority is vital to the success of the Two State-Solution.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the appropriateness of the design, and the continued involvement of Adjaye Associates in the delivery, of the planned Westminster Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre in the light of the allegations of sexual misconduct against the lead architect Sir David Adjaye.

Answered by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government)

The Government remains committed to delivering the proposed Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre which will be a world-class Memorial of exceptional quality. As reported by the National Audit Office in March 2025 forecast costs for completing the programme stand at £146.6 million. Annual running costs published in the revised Accounting Officer Assessment are estimated to be £6.5-8.5m.

The Holocaust Memorial project team and the Restoration and Renewal programme team meet regularly to share information and co-ordinate plans to reduce potential impacts

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask His Majesty's Government what are the estimated costs of the construction and running costs of the planned Westminster Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre; and what assessment have they made of the merits of delaying the construction of the Memorial and Learning Centre until restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster has concluded.

Answered by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government)

The Government remains committed to delivering the proposed Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre which will be a world-class Memorial of exceptional quality. As reported by the National Audit Office in March 2025 forecast costs for completing the programme stand at £146.6 million. Annual running costs published in the revised Accounting Officer Assessment are estimated to be £6.5-8.5m.

The Holocaust Memorial project team and the Restoration and Renewal programme team meet regularly to share information and co-ordinate plans to reduce potential impacts

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Levitt on 15 June (HL442), what evidence they have secured that tribunal judges recuse themselves appropriately; and what steps they intend to take to advise parties that they should conduct research into tribunal judges' conflicts of interest which might affect their appearance before them.

Answered by Baroness Levitt

All tribunals judges swear an oath to act impartially. Because recusal in general and the conduct of judges in particular, are matters for the independent judiciary, the Government has not sought to assess recusal in the tribunals. The Government is unable to give legal advice to litigants.

The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office can investigate a potential conflict of interest if, for example, “an appeal court’s criticism of a judicial office holder for failure to declare a potential conflict of interest was so serious as to raise a question of judicial misconduct”. Further information can be found on its website at https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.gov.uk/.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government following recent accusations of connections between Hamas and staff at the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), whether a tribunal judge's membership of an UNRWA committee could be considered conduct that is capable of compromising judicial independence or propriety, as outlined in the Guide to Judicial Conduct.

Answered by Baroness Levitt

All tribunals judges swear an oath to act impartially. Because recusal in general and the conduct of judges in particular, are matters for the independent judiciary, the Government has not sought to assess recusal in the tribunals. The Government is unable to give legal advice to litigants.

The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office can investigate a potential conflict of interest if, for example, “an appeal court’s criticism of a judicial office holder for failure to declare a potential conflict of interest was so serious as to raise a question of judicial misconduct”. Further information can be found on its website at https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.gov.uk/.

Question to the HM Treasury:

To ask His Majesty's Government what policy the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation applies when considering whether to recommend the imposition of financial sanctions on individuals resident in, or operating from, the United Kingdom who are alleged to have links to Hamas or to have supported Hamas; whether that policy extends to considering sanctions against persons who are not themselves members of Hamas but who are alleged to have acted on its behalf or provided material support to it; and whether that policy has been applied in relation to Zaher Birawi, Mohammed Sawalha, Ziad Elaloul, Majed Al Zeer and Adnan Hmidan.

Answered by Lord Livermore

The Government takes the threat of Hamas very seriously and remains committed to cutting off funding sources to Hamas and any other organisations or individuals supporting terrorist activity which prevents sustainable peace in the Middle East.

Under the Counter-Terrorism (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, for which the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (“OFSI”) holds responsibility for designation, financial sanctions are imposed in a targeted and coordinated manner with the aim of reducing the risk to the UK, its citizens and its interests overseas from terrorism, so that people can go about their lives freely and with confidence.

To achieve those policy aims, OFSI regularly reviews targets for designation to explore whether they meet our criteria for designation under the Counter-Terrorism (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. This includes assessing whether the evidence available reaches the thresholds set out in legislation and that the use of sanctions is proportionate to their aims.

It is a standing policy that HMT does not provide details on any OFSI actions or investigations that may or may not be ongoing.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government whether the procedures to be introduced by the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority to deal with potential conflicts of interest among its appointed adjudicators will include a requirement for those adjudicators to declare any financial or other relevant interests in advance of taking up office; and whether a register of those interests will be made public.

Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)

The appointment of adjudicators will be for the Chief Executive of the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority.

However, the Bill makes explicit provision via the proposed Professional Standards Officer role to ensure the highest standards of conduct are observed by adjudicators.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government how they will monitor the appropriateness of recusal in the case of a conflict of interest by adjudicators appointed to serve by the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority.

Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)

The appointment of adjudicators will be for the Chief Executive of the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority.

However, the Bill makes explicit provision via the proposed Professional Standards Officer role to ensure the highest standards of conduct are observed by adjudicators.

Question to the Department for Education:

To ask His Majesty's Government, in light of the statement by Palestine Action activist Samuel Corner, who was convicted of criminal damage and inflicting grievous bodily harm, that he had been inspired by the Gaza protest encampment at Oxford University, what steps they are taking to ensure that university students are not becoming terrorists or being drawn into criminal activity.

Answered by Baroness Smith of Malvern - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)

The government is clear that terrorism, antisemitic abuse and criminal activity have no place on campuses.

Higher education providers are subject to the Prevent duty, which requires them to have due regard to preventing people from being drawn into terrorism. This includes identifying individuals vulnerable to radicalisation and ensuring appropriate risk assessment and mitigation measures are in place.

Universities work closely with partners, including the police and statutory agencies, where concerns arise about unlawful activity or terrorism-related risks. Encouraging or supporting terrorism, fundraising for terrorist purposes, or promoting proscribed organisations are serious criminal offences and will not be tolerated.

The government is strengthening oversight of compliance with the Prevent duty and taking broader action to tackle antisemitism and extremism. This includes updating guidance on external speakers and events, greater focus on disruptions work, strengthening whistleblowing protections, and increasing transparency around incidents of antisemitism and other forms of harassment on campus.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Levitt on 30 June (HL993), what discussions they have had with the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office about (1) the Office's satisfaction that Immigration and Asylum tribunal judges are recusing themselves appropriately in cases where there is a potential conflict of interest, and (2) whether the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office has sufficient information about the interests of those judges that might present conflicts of interest in litigation.

Answered by Baroness Levitt

The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) supports the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice in their joint responsibility for judicial discipline. It considers complaints about a judge’s personal conduct in line with statutory regulations, rules and related guidance. The JCIO does not have a role in monitoring or investigating judges’ conduct unless a complaint is made or referred to it. In terms of recusal, it can only consider these if the appeal court has criticised a judge for failure to declare a potential conflict of interest so serious as to raise a question of judicial misconduct.

The Guide to Judicial Conduct contains a core set of principles designed to support all judicial office holders’ conduct and decision-making, including judges in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal. The Guide states that: “Judicial office holders must recuse themselves from any case where a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that they would be biased.” Responsibility for maintaining and upholding these standards rests with the independent judiciary. It would be inappropriate for the Government to discuss with JCIO what information they should consider in conduct cases.

Found: interest Further to the question raised by Baroness Berridge during the evidence session, and Baroness Deech

Found: Labour, Bracknell) • Samantha Niblett MP (Labour, South Derbyshire) • Baroness Cash • Baroness Deech

Found: speakers mentioned their concerns about the navigability of the CMS, notably Lord Shipley and Baroness Deech