Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Harries of Pentregarth Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Lords Chamber

In that sense, I am sympathetic to dealing with non-violent ideology and extremism; I just do not know how to do it in the law. But I do want to know who the police are talking to, which mosques and which churches—we do not want to be sectarian, so let us have them all. The public need to know. I know that the Met’s counterterrorism command engages broadly with communities, apart from anything else seeking out advice on ideologies, including religious ideologies, perhaps with some grotesque results. Who can forget when the Metropolitan Police posted on social media in October 2023 about the true meaning of jihad in the middle of a demonstration by Hizb ut-Tahrir, which was referencing liberating Palestine and Muslim armies on the streets of London?

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

Why could not or should not the disturbing examples that the noble Baroness has cited already have been prosecuted under current legislation on hate law?

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

That might well be true, but it indicates that there might be a problem of the police not necessarily being impartial, because they are so busy forming community relationships with mosques that they are not necessarily listening to the kind of things that are going on in mosques or whatever other institutions. I agree with the noble and right reverend Lord, but this is the point I am making: Hizb ut-Tahrir are on the streets of London shouting about Muslim armies and jihad, while the Metropolitan Police, no doubt getting some theological Islamic advice from their religious advisers, put up a post saying that jihad has a number of meanings and should not be seen in just one way and talking about personal struggle and so on.

I want to finish with the example of what good community relations are and where we might be. Amid the Southport murder-related riots, that horrible period of disruption and violence on the streets, an extraordinary film was posted on TikTok of a police officer telling counter-protesters to stash the weapons in the mosque so that they would not have to arrest anyone. The liaison officer, wearing a blue police vest, was addressing a group of men gathered outside the Darul Falah mosque in Hanley, near Stoke-on-Trent, and was appearing to give the group of young men a weapons amnesty. He spoke to the crowd, saying:

“If there are any weapons or anything like that, then what I would do is discard them at the mosque”.


The reason why I am saying that is that I just think we should not be naive. That is the most important thing. When we talk about the police liaising with religious organisations, in a period of identity politics and in a period such as the one that we are living through in 2026, we should at least pause and not assume it is all going well. I therefore welcome the attempt at saying, “Let’s know who they are talking to”. That is the important reason why I support this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 439 and 446 in my name are technical in nature and provide changes to the provisions concerning the youth diversion orders.

Government Amendment 439 relates to the definition of ancillary offences in Clause 167(3). Clause 167(1) provides that a court may make a youth diversion order if satisfied, among other things, that the respondent has committed a terrorism offence. The definition of “terrorism offence” includes ancillary offences such as aiding or abetting the commission of an offence. This technical amendment ensures that the definition of an ancillary offence operates as it should—I know that the noble Lord will appreciate this—in the context of the Scottish legal system and also aligns the drafting of the legislation with that in Schedule 11 to the Bill for consistency.

Government Amendment 446 relates to Clause 182(2). This disapplies the six-month time limit for a complaint to a magistrates’ court in England and Wales so that an application for a youth diversion order may be made at a later date where necessary. The amendment similarly disapplies the six-month time limit in Northern Ireland. I know that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, also has two amendments in this group. I will respond to those after hearing his representations. I beg to move government Amendment 439.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to the two amendments in my name, Amendments 440 and 445. Amendment 440 would require the respondent to receive citizenship education in British values, and Amendment 445 sets out what those values are. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has also added his name to these amendments. He very much regrets that he is unable to speak this evening due to a commitment chairing a police commission that he is not able to change.

I will make two preliminary points to avoid misunderstandings. First, these amendments are not about personal values or lifestyles. They are about the fundamental political values on which our whole society is founded. Secondly, these values are not a kind of innovation in our law; they already have to be taught in our schools.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

440: Clause 169, page 207, line 2, at end insert—
“(aa) require the respondent to receive citizenship education relating to British values (see section (Further content: citizenship education)).”

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

My Lords, if I am allowed to respond, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Falkner of Margravine and Lady Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for their qualified support. I point out that there is no need for a national consultation about our fundamental British values because they are already there. They were brought into effect by the Conservative Government under the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton. My point is that the formulation is not adequate. I understand what the Minister says about not wanting to be too prescriptive, but I hope the Government will take much more seriously the whole question of fundamental British values and see whether there can be greater awareness and support for it in a whole range of legislation.

Amendment 440 not moved.

Sydney Terrorist Attack

Lord Harries of Pentregarth Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Prime Minister had already tasked Government Ministers to look at what else we can do, prior to yesterday’s events. The Prime Minister has also tasked the police forces, via the Home Secretary, to look at how we can step up security patrols to give reassurance in neighbourhoods where there are synagogues and events occurring. It is absolutely vital that people are free to enjoy and celebrate their religion, and to enjoy their family community events. I say that not just of the Jewish community, but of all religions and for those people who have none. We cannot accept a situation whereby people with warped views commit atrocious acts of violence against children, women and Holocaust survivors—people enjoying their day on a beach. We cannot accept that circumstance and this Government will work with anybody to ensure that we protect our communities from similar attacks.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

My Lords, the Christian community has a special responsibility to stand in solidarity with the Jewish community, not only in Australia but in this country and around the world. In view of the fact that it was revealed that one of the people who committed this atrocity had already been examined by the Australian police as a potential terrorist, is there a case in this country for re-examining some people who have been examined in the past?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope the noble and right reverend Lord will accept that I cannot comment on active live Australian investigations. It would be inappropriate for me to do so as a UK Government Minister, but in any UK context it would simply be the same. There has to be a due process to investigate what has happened and why, but, self-evidently, we need to ensure that our security services and police services in the United Kingdom, as well as the work we do in the Home Office and across government, can identify and monitor where there are potential threats, and take action to prevent those threats materialising into the type of action taken yesterday. That is an ongoing challenge but it is something that our security services do daily and will continue to do. I know that they have the support of both Houses of Parliament in that activity.

Violence Against Women and Girls

Lord Harries of Pentregarth Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I can. I think I have already said it to the House, but I will give the noble Lord the latest. On 17 November the Minister responsible for this in another place, Jess Phillips, said during Home Office Orals that the strategy would be coming out very soon but that we are already taking action. I give this assurance to the House: when I say very soon, I mean very soon. I hope noble Lords will recognise that when it does, very soonly, they will know that I said that the violence against women and girls strategy would come out “very soon”. I hope that will satisfy the noble Lord.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

One of the problems at the moment is online images of what it is to be a young man—distorted images that imply that to be a young man is to be misogynistic, carrying with them assumptions of implicit violence. What are the current Government doing online to counteract these false, distorted images of what it is to be a man?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I find it quite upsetting to see some of the images and messages that are put out from people who, in some cases, currently face criminal charges in other countries. It is important that, through the work that my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern is doing, we work with schools and communities to ensure that young men in particular respect everyone in society, and that they are not taken down some of the very false routes that currently appear on much of social media.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Harries of Pentregarth Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

My Lords, if we pass this Bill, we choose to go down a particular road. Before we do that, we ought to ask where the road leads and whether there are any stopping places on the way. First, I much respect those who have long campaigned for this Bill. Their position rests on two convictions that I share: the importance of free choice, and a desire to relieve human suffering. However, I ask supporters of the Bill to think about those who experience unbearable suffering but who have many years to live.

In 2008, 23 year-old Daniel James went to Switzerland with Dignitas. As a 16 year-old he played rugby for England, but, paralysed from the waist down as a result of an injury, he could not bear the thought of a whole life in that situation. The hearts of all of us go out to people in that position. It is of course difficult to weigh the intensity of one person’s suffering against another, but we can measure time. Is not the thought of having 60 years of hopelessness ahead worse than six months of pain? In the course of my life, I have met many people suffering from acute schizophrenia and multipolar disorder who time and again have tried to kill themselves. Even when they are in a good period, they have said that they would rather be dead than have to go through the cycle of their illness again. One has to ask whether it is worse to have six months to live, or a lifetime of mental anguish.

It seems to me clear that, if the desire is to relieve people of unbearable suffering and they have the right to choose whether they live or die, the logic of the argument—if you like, the argument of compassion—is absolutely inescapable: that a Bill more along the lines of the one in Canada or the Netherlands is the only one that will do what is needed. If this Bill goes through, there will be inevitable pressure to amend it to include unbearable suffering of many kinds, physical and mental, not perhaps in the next year or two but certainly within a few years. It is inevitable because the logic of compassion is even more strongly in favour of such a Bill than it is in favour of the present one.

Therefore, I ask the supporters of this Bill to think about whether they really want a situation such as in Canada and the Netherlands, where it is possible to be assisted in dying for a whole range of causes, mental as well as physical. I am not arguing for or against a Bill like that; I am just asking whether supporters of the present Bill regard that as desirable. In 20 years’ time, the proportion of elderly in the population will be much higher. Millions will be suffering from dementia, and it is difficult to believe that the resources to care for them, already badly stretched, will be adequate. There is a kind of nightmare scenario of assisted dying becoming the default option.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, pointed out that the law in Oregon on assisted dying for the terminally ill has lasted now for 25 years or so and has not been changed to a law like the one in Canada or the Netherlands. That is a good and absolutely fair point, and I totally accept it, in principle. But my argument is that the argument from compassion based upon free choice and the desire to relieve suffering is even stronger in a Canada-type Bill than it is in this one, and therefore there will be inevitable pressure. This morning, as I was sitting at the bus stop waiting to get on, a lady asked me what I was doing and I told her that I was coming to do this. She immediately said to me, “But what about those people who are suffering from incurable conditions and have years to live?” It is safer not to go down this road at all.

Immigration System

Lord Harries of Pentregarth Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The answer is yes.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

My Lords, there is an acute shortage in the social care sector. Will the Minister recognise that the policies in the White Paper will actually make that shortage even worse? We hear some talk about making the social care sector more attractive. Can he give us any kind of indication of when changes will take place to make the wages in social care attractive enough to bring people away from the retail sector, and to provide it with a proper career structure and the proper dignity and respect that it ought to have?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We will make changes to the Immigration Rules relating to the social care sector during the course of this year, but we are also putting in place a transitional period. There is a need to ensure that we try to meet any shortfall in social care requirements from within the existing UK workforce—that is the objective of government policy. I am happy to discuss with my colleagues and the social care sector how we improve recruitment and other issues, and we will do that through other government departments. The key thing is that we cannot rely completely on overseas labour to fill the UK social care sector.