Death of a Member: Lord Etherton
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, yesterday. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble and learned Lord’s family and friends.
Pupil Absenteeism
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jackson of Peterborough
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support teachers and schools to reduce pupil absenteeism.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, improving school attendance is a top priority for the Government. We are providing schools and teachers with world-leading data tools, empowering them to identify quickly children who are at risk of non-attendance and to put the right support in place. Our 31 attendance hubs have helped 2,000 schools to adopt best practice. Our new regional improvement for standards and excellence advisers will also work closely with schools to reduce absence.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
The Minister will know that the cohort of children who are severely absent—those who miss more than 50% of their classes—which amounts to about 120,000 pupils, are the most at risk of ending up in gang activity and other serious criminality. The previous Government did a good job on tackling this problem, but what assistance are the Government giving to individual schools to collate and use data on absence to develop a plan of action to tackle the most acute attendance problems?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that being absent from school, particularly persistently, not only impacts on your education but puts you in danger and makes you vulnerable to criminal activity in the way he outlined. That is why it is really important that we nip in the bud the attendance problems of those who start being absent before they are persistently absent. Through the Working Together guidance, we now expect that local authority teams will meet schools regularly to agree individual plans for severely absent children to get them back into school and to keep them out of trouble.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
My Lords, the Institute for Government recently published a report, Reducing School Absence, which concludes that under the last Labour Government, absence rates for secondary school pupils fell by 42%. Its key recommendation is that the most effective way to tackle absence is to bring all parties together—adolescent health, special needs, school disengagement and family support. That is what the last Labour Government did under the Every Child Matters agenda. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that this is the best way to reduce absenteeism, which under the previous Government ballooned to 1.5 million pupils being persistently absent in 2023-24?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right that we have seen big increases in the number of children who are missing school, both those who are persistently absent and those who are severely absent, as I said in my earlier response. My noble friend is right that, particularly to deal with children who are severely absent, you need to bring together a range of properly resourced agencies to work on the individual plans I talked about in the previous answer. That is one of the reasons why we are investing £500 million in children’s social care and in prevention, so that we can ensure that severely absent children are routinely assessed for family help, bringing together those services in the way she outlined.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that children who fail at school, and who know they are failing, are far more likely to be absent? With that in mind, what are we doing about getting proper assessment to help those children, particularly those with special educational needs, without going through a long, expensive and slow identification process?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
For children with special educational needs, it is really important that, as we have discussed previously, those needs are identified early. That is why we have launched new SEND assessment resources and child development training for the early years sector. This Government’s ambition is that all children with special educational needs receive the right support to succeed in mainstream schools where possible. That is what we are focused on. It is what we are engaging with parents and professionals about. It is the change we will ensure so that children are much more likely to succeed and, as the noble Lord said, to stay in school and achieve, with all the benefits that brings for the rest of their lives.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, there is very good evidence that arts, music and sports programmes lead to improvements in school attendance and engagement, especially in at-risk populations. However, state schools have seen a huge reduction in creative subjects over the last 15 years. What plans do the Government have to increase arts and culture provision so that students in state schools have the same opportunities as those in independent schools? Will the Government encourage schools to join the Artsmark programme? Artsmark schools report huge improvements in attendance and engagement from children.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right. The right curriculum, and the breadth of the enriching and enjoyable activities that happen within schools, are certainly important for keeping children there and helping them to learn. Ensuring that we have a curriculum that supports the space to enable those things to happen is one of the reasons why we have the curriculum and assessment review currently being undertaken. But we have not waited for that to provide additional investment—for example, for the national centre related to music—that will help to ensure that more children have the opportunities she talked about.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
Is the Minister aware that many 13 and 14 year-olds who do not turn up on two days a week do not want to go back to a school where they will have to study just eight academic subjects, which is the standard curriculum for comprehensives? Until they have some injections of training and vocational subjects, absenteeism will remain high.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
This is why we need to make sure that the curriculum provides the excellence of subject teaching and knowledge necessary for children to progress in life, and also that it has the opportunity to provide the broad experience for learners that the noble Lord references. There are lots of good examples of schools that, while offering the whole national curriculum, nevertheless also manage to provide other alternatives: more enrichment and more opportunities to learn about the skills that will be necessary in the workplace. I am sure that makes school even more attractive to students.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure my noble friend will know that, in the last academic year, the number of those absent more than 50% of the time went up by a staggering two-thirds—so we have a genuine crisis. I know that my noble friend is too old—
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
I mean that she is too young to remember the school bobby, who turned up at my parents’ house only to find that I had been sent away to a school for the blind. Is it not true that, in some circumstances, we really have to work with the parents, because they have a responsibility as well?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend—despite what he just said about me—is absolutely right. This is where that personalised plan around an individual child—using, where necessary, early help provision, family support and challenge to parents—is absolutely fundamental for those children, who have sometimes completely lost touch with what it means to attend school regularly and learn appropriately. They need that type of intervention—my noble friend is absolutely right.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government have done some excellent work on attendance, and the national roadshows that have been held with schools are to be welcomed. The numbers are improving, but they are not improving quickly for children on free school meals. What will the Government do about that?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As the noble Baroness knows, there is a differential impact on absenteeism, depending on whether a child has special educational needs or free school meals. So it is really important that, in using the improved data now available to us at a very granular level, we ensure that schools know what is effective in order to reduce absenteeism and, in particular—this was the reason for the roadshows that the noble Baroness identified—can compare themselves with others. Schools with similar intakes perform very differently in tackling absence, which is why we need to make sure that the data is used in a really granular way. To be fair to the noble Baroness, she started that in her time in the department.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham
My Lords, as a foster carer for Nottingham city, I am aware that children with higher levels of often complex needs hugely benefit from additional support in smaller integrated learning environments in order to stay motivated and engaged. I press the Minister again very particularly: what assessment have the Government therefore made of how the increase in the number of children with significant special educational needs—who now very often remain in large classes, with the disruption that creates for many pupils—is impacting on pupil absenteeism?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate rightly pushes me. This is the reason why, as part of our approach to supporting children with special educational needs, we are keen to ensure that children receive the support they need to succeed where possible in mainstream schools—but that may well involve resourced units within those schools that will enable the smaller, more personalised provision that the right reverend Prelate is talking about. We have made additional capital available, as well as the £1 billion more of additional high needs funding to help to begin that work.
Prime Minister and First Minister of Wales Meetings
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes
To ask His Majesty’s Government what meetings the Prime Minister has had with the First Minister of Wales in the past month, and what matters were discussed in those meetings.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, the Prime Minister speaks regularly with the First Minister of Wales as part of the Government’s reset relationship with the Welsh Government. The Prime Minister and First Minister spoke last week on a range of issues, including how we deliver our shared priorities. Of course, the Prime Minister and First Minister work together on behalf of our two Governments on the Council of the Nations and Regions, which is due to meet again imminently. That is in addition to their engagement through IDR structures.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
I thank the Minister for her Answer. The people of Wales were promised at the last general election that, if they voted Labour, they would have two Governments, at either end of the M4, improving their lives. But yesterday the First Minister of Wales gave a speech suggesting ruptures in that relationship, coining the new phrase, “The new Welsh way”, and suggesting certain requests for this Government to deliver on. So which if any of those requests are this Government going to enact?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, the First Minister’s speech reflected the reset relationship between our two Governments based on respect, collaboration and delivery. The Labour Party is a broad synagogue, and we actively engage with people of all views. It will not surprise noble Lords that we are two Governments working together, but Welsh Labour has its own identity and, of course, we do not agree about everything. But we are two Governments working together with a shared set of values and priorities that reflect what matters most to the people of Wales, which is why we have delivered so much for them in our first 10 months.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, yesterday the First Minister made an important speech in Cardiff noting the changed and positive relationship with the UK Government since last July. But just as the wonderful programme “Gavin and Stacey” often showed, what is right for Billericay will not always be right for Barry. Does my noble friend agree that this can be seen as a positive example of devolution and disagreement between partners? It is grown-up modern government.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for the question. I really hoped that she would start her question with “What’s occurin’?”, because it sounds so much better in her accent than in mine. There are many things we learn from “Gavin and Stacey”, not least that no man is an island—except Barry. On that basis, we are clear that devolution in action is about two Governments working together for the people of Barry, Basildon and Billericay—and for the people of Burslem in my former constituency.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. Tourism is a vital component of the Welsh economy. What conversations have the Minister or the Prime Minister had with the First Minister about the Welsh Government’s ill-thought-through and short-sighted decision to introduce a tourism tax?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very interesting point—I wonder whether he made it to his Conservative colleagues on Great Yarmouth Borough Council, who were the first to introduce a tourism tax. The tourism tax brings in £33 million a year. There are ongoing conversations, but this is devolution in action, and it is a matter for the Welsh Government.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords:
“In this new generation, it must be the people and communities of Wales who profit from our energy gifts. We need a different approach to the one which just hands the power and resources to the Crown Estate over which we have no say”.
Those are not my words but those said yesterday by the Welsh Labour First Minister, echoing the sentiments of some in this House. Has she used similar words in the discussions with the Prime Minister, and was he listening—or are we seeing the building of a new red wall in the Bristol Channel, one dividing Welsh Labour from its UK Big Brother?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, anyone would think that there might be an election within the next 12 months.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
We won the last one and we will win the next one. The noble Baroness raises a genuine issue about the Crown Estate, which we have discussed in your Lordships’ House in great detail. That is why, thanks to the work of my noble friend Lord Hain, we brought forward an amendment in this House to appoint a commissioner for Wales. We need to look at what the Crown Estate is actually delivering: 5,000 jobs and a £1.4 billion boost in investment for the people of Wales. It delivers real things on the ground for the people of Wales, and it is important that we celebrate what we are achieving.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, if devolution is a process, what further steps along that road do the Government aspire to over the lifetime of this Parliament?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I am proud that, in 1998, the previous Labour Government delivered the devolution Acts and what is now the Senedd in Wales and the Scottish Parliament. We are committed to devolution and to seeing devolution in action. We were very clear on that in our manifesto, which we remain committed to. We will deliver on the ongoing conversations we are having about further devolution.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to an election. Is she aware of the polls this morning showing Plaid Cymru on 30%, ahead of Reform UK, and with Labour in third place on 18%? In those circumstances, does she not feel it beholden on the Government to take note of the representations of the First Minister of Wales, who wants to see some parts of the social packages announced by the Government reconsidered, particularly the announcements on disability benefits, which she wants to see totally scrapped? Can the Minister give an assurance that there will always be an open door for those representations from Wales and that they will be considered on their merits, rather than being rejected because they do not fall in line with the vision seen from London?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, what is clear is that our relationship with the Welsh Government is built on respect, collaboration and delivery. There is an open door: the Secretary of State for Wales speaks to the First Minister nearly every day, we have ongoing conversations and we work very closely, through both formal and informal structures, including with parliamentarians across your Lordships’ House. With regard to the polls, we are a year away and we will be fighting for every vote.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, in an effort to be constructive, and as somebody born and brought up very close to Barry Island, I ask the noble Baroness: given the parlous state of the health service in Wales, did the First Minister and Prime Minister discuss the possibility of allowing Welsh patients to be treated across the border in England?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for giving me the opportunity to celebrate the achievements of NHS Wales in the past three months. Waiting lists have fallen month on month over the past three months because of the additional record-breaking £21 billion of investment that has gone to the Welsh Government from this Government. NHS England and NHS Wales are working closely with each other to deliver change but let us be clear: the inheritance we were left by the previous Government —the lack of funding both for NHS Wales and for our public services across the United Kingdom—is why we find ourselves in this place.
Lord Morgan (Lab)
Is it not a matter of importance what these conversations with the Welsh Government are about? Many fundamental questions have been totally ignored. One drearily familiar on this side of the House is the Barnett formula, which has led to Wales being swindled out of its funding for a very long time —by coalition, Conservative and now Labour Governments. Can we please have some improvement?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, this Government have been very clear that we have no plans to review the Barnett formula. Having said that, our manifesto stated that we recognise that the Welsh fiscal framework is out of date. We are continuing conversations with our colleagues in Wales about how we can make it work.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, what conversations has the Minister had with the First Minister about universities? We know that all universities are under very severe pressure, but universities in Wales seem to be particularly hard hit. Cardiff University, for example, has had to close its music, theology and nursing departments. What conversations has she had with them?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, sometimes it is very helpful when colleagues are sitting next to you on the Front Bench. My noble friend Lady Smith has met with Wales’s Universities Minister to discuss the challenges being faced, and I assure the noble and right reverend Lord that conversations are ongoing.
Lord Deben (Con)
Will the noble Baroness accept that I joined with many of her colleagues in fighting against the Barnett formula, and that the Labour Party strongly attacked the Conservative Government because they did not do anything about it? Why is she now telling us that she is not going to do anything about it, when it is clearly wrong?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, the Labour Government’s position on the Barnett formula is clear, but I am always open to discussions about how the noble Lord can continue to work with us on these Benches to deliver for the people of the United Kingdom.
Criminal Cases Review Commission
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Garnier
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reform the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)
My Lords, it is essential that the public have confidence in the CCRC and its ability to investigate potential miscarriages of justice fairly and impartially. An interim chair is being appointed and the Lord Chancellor will ask them to conduct a review of the operation of the organisation. As part of its current review of criminal appeals, the Law Commission will be reporting on the role and function of the CCRC. The Government will carefully consider any recommendations put forward.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister share the view of the chief executive of the CCRC, given to the House of Commons Justice Select Committee last week, that she thought it appropriate to come into the office only one or two days every couple of months? Does he agree that the CCRC needs real leadership? It needs an executive chairman with legal standing, full-time salaried commissioners, and higher quality and better paid caseworkers, and it needs to get rid of the predictive test for referring cases to the Court of Appeal. The CCRC is vital to the justice system of this country. It is in a state of complete collapse and it needs gripping by this Government.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
As I said in my first Answer to the noble and learned Lord, the intention is to appoint an interim chair who will conduct a review of the way the CCRC is working, and that will be done in collaboration with the ongoing review by the Law Commission. I listened to the evidence that was given to the Select Committee last week. Clearly, how it chooses to conduct its affairs is a matter for the CCRC itself. A new interim chair is to be appointed, probably for a period of about 18 months; that, together with the Law Commission review, may result in changes at the CCRC.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, the CCRC is about people’s lives. There are currently 20 cases before it for the Post Office Capture victims—this was the system before Horizon. The last Government agreed to overturn the convictions of Horizon victims. On Capture, this Government have referred victims to the CCRC. Many of these are elderly people—these cases go back to the early 1990s. What more can be done to speed this up, because some of these people are going to die before they get justice?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
The Ministry of Justice has increased the CCRC’s budget year on year since 2020-21. The budget for 2025-26 has been set at £10.1 million, which is an increase of 38% since 2021-22. We recognise the need for increased resource, a recommendation made by the report to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, put his name. That report made other recommendations, which will be taken into account in the review that will be undertaken.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, someone who works for me may have been unjustly sent to prison well over 10 years ago. Is it not time that the entire commission is set aside and new people appointed, with everything done as a matter of some urgency?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
The noble and learned Baroness is right to say that there is concern with the CCRC. The Lord Chancellor has recognised that and has put in place the framework, if I can put it like that, to consider change, which may be radical change—we wait to see. There certainly are concerns with the operation of that body.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, Andrew Malkinson served 17 years for a rape he did not commit. The CCRC is supposed to be the last hope for victims of miscarriages of justice; a safety net to ensure that wrongful convictions are examined with diligence. An independent review demonstrated that the CCRC carelessly missed several opportunities to overturn that conviction. In her recent evidence to the Commons Justice Committee, the chief executive demonstrated a complete lack of the required diligence. Is it not now time for her to go and to be replaced, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, suggested, by a full-time, executive, highly qualified chair?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I absolutely recognise the point that the noble Lord made about Andrew Malkinson, who suffered a terrible miscarriage of justice. I understand there has been an interim payment made to him and that it is currently under consideration what the final award will be. My understanding is that the CCRC commissioned its own separate independent review into its handling of Malkinson’s issue and the applications, led by Chris Henley KC. The review, published in July 2024, set out multiple organisational and individual failings leading to that miscarriage of justice. That forms part of the overall review to which I have referred in earlier answers.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, following on from the sixth recommendation—recommendation F—of Chris Henley’s report of July of last year, what steps is the commission taking in particular to track and revisit unsuccessful forensic inquiries, including tests which do not produce profiles or produce only partial and incomplete profiles, which produce complete profiles that do not produce a match, or which produce developments in areas other than DNA? Is the commission now acting on advice from the national DNA database? I appreciate these are detailed questions. If the Minister cannot answer today, will he please write to me and place a copy in the Library?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for the question. I think I am right in saying that there has been additional money put into the forensic side of the work done by the CCRC. If there is additional information which I need to impart to the House or to the noble Lord, I will put that in a letter.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, it is widely agreed that the CCRC has been failing, not just for a year but for decades. The Malkinson case demonstrated that, as he was rejected in 2009 and rejected in 2018. Is it not right that the first step to do something about the CCRC was taken by the Lord Chancellor, in forcing out the chair who failed to acknowledge the problems of the CCRC? My second question is this. There are urgent cases, as my noble friend has referred to. It is not just that case but, for example, the Lucy Letby case. What steps are the Government going to take to ensure that, while the review is going on, the public can have confidence in their dealing with those sorts of cases?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank my noble and learned friend. It was of course an independent board which was appointed by my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor. She acted on the advice of the independent board, and the chair of that organisation stepped down. My noble and learned friend asked about the Lucy Letby case. That is a case which I understand is under active consideration, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on it.
Sport: Supreme Court Ruling on Sex and Gender
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moynihan
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they intend to hold meetings with the British Olympic Association and national governing bodies of sport, including the Football Association, to discuss the implications for British sport of the Supreme Court ruling on the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010.
The Minister of State, Office for Equality and Opportunity (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, it is for each sport’s domestic national governing body to set their own policies for who can participate in domestic competitions. We have always been clear that, when it comes to women’s sport, biology matters. We will continue to support sports to develop policies that protect fairness and safety. Our sporting bodies also need to come up with approaches to ensure that everybody has the opportunity to take part in some capacity.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I proposed an amendment in 2004 to the then Gender Recognition Bill, which was agreed by your Lordships’ House and reflected in the Equality Act 2010, to exempt sports governing bodies from the legislation on the grounds of fair competition and the safety of competitors. Nevertheless, does the Minister agree that, given the widely differing interpretations within the world of sport, government advice on these two very sensitive but important issues, in collaboration with Sport England, would be definitely welcomed?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that the Equality Act has always enabled sporting bodies to make decisions on the basis of safety and fairness, which we wholly support, but there are also considerable differences between individual sports in terms of, for example, the age or level at which safety and fairness become really crucial elements. I am not sure that it is the role of government to intervene in the way he is suggesting, because the clarity from the Supreme Court ruling, interpreted in relation to each individual sport, is probably the appropriate way for governing bodies to go.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, far fewer women than men, at all levels, participate in sport, and Sport England made money available to parkrun to encourage young women to participate. Because of the way parkrun keeps its figures, it allows men to self-identify and to have their times put as if they were women’s times, which is terribly discouraging for women coming into the sport. Could the Government subtly have some discussions with Sport England? Maybe it would really be fair for women if their times could be kept just for born women.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am an enormous fan and participant in parkrun, which manages to provide enormous opportunities for running for both very talented runners and people like me. The noble Baroness makes an important point about everybody being able to identify their performance on the basis of a fair comparison. It is for parkrun to listen to that and to make the relevant decisions.
Baroness Hunt of Bethnal Green (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware, as has already been alluded to, that the Equality Act and the Gender Recognition Act have always allowed trans people to be excluded from sports, and the Supreme Court judgment has not changed that. The most complicated area for elite sport and international sport is around those who are not trans but for whom it is hard to determine whether they are a woman. The Supreme Court judgment defines biological sex as something that is assigned at birth. Does the Minister think that it is the role of the Government to re-examine what we mean by biological sex, to enable elite sport and international sport to make a more balanced judgment about who is allowed to compete in the category of woman?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Frankly, no, I do not think that it is the role of government to determine for international sporting bodies how they make those decisions in the very difficult circumstances that the noble Baroness identified.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, will the Government confirm that they will make sure that sports themselves—with medical help—make these decisions, and that they make their decisions based on, as the Minister already said, safety first and then fairness? They must make sure that everybody knows that, because confusion has been eating away at the structure of sport.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
That is what I just said in my previous answer. It is the responsibility of sports governing bodies to make decisions that are appropriate for their sports and that also deliver the safety and fairness that have always been at the heart of the legislation in this area. That is the most appropriate way forward.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, following on from the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hunt, we can all think of examples in international sport which are some of the most complex and do not relate to trans athletes’ participation but the methods used to determine whether someone is male or female. Will the Government be providing better clarity on this aspect for international sporting bodies?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that the controversy or difficulty comes through the methods that are used to determine sex or conditions for entry within those sports. I still think it is not the role of government or within the power of government to tell international sporting bodies what conditions and rules they should have in place for participation in those sports.
Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)
My Lords, given that a lawful and meaningful consultation requires consultees to be afforded adequate time to respond, can my noble friend the Minister confirm how long the Government will consider adequate for the EHRC’s consultation, in the context of a highly complex area of law that has attracted a wide range of interpretations?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
It is clear that this is both a difficult and sensitive area, not least because this is my third or fourth appearance at the Dispatch Box on it since the ruling. My noble friend refers particularly to the development of the code of practice by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which will be a very important way of ensuring that providers of services—less so, I have to say, for sports governing bodies—have more clarity about the application of the Supreme Court ruling. It is clearly important that there is sufficient time for people both to consider the implications of that and to make representations. I hope and believe that it is the intention of the Equality and Human Rights Commission that people have the chance to make those representations over a suitable period of time.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the noble Lord first and then from the noble Baroness on the Lib Dem Benches.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, in light of the Supreme Court judgment, as well as the FA’s change of policy, will the Minister take this opportunity to invite—not tell—the FA to apologise to those women whom it has penalised for objecting to the participation of biological males in women’s football. I am thinking in particular of the teenage girl who received a six-match ban from Lancashire FA for asking a bearded opponent she was about to play against on a ladies team whether he was a man.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As I have said previously, the Supreme Court judgment provides us with some clarity around the definition of sex within the Equality Act on the basis of biological sex. The priority now is for all of us to go forward, through the Equality and Human Right Commission’s code of practice and through the way we deal with this issue, not in a spirit of looking backwards or recrimination but in a way that enables us to ensure that this judgment is properly administered and represented in the changes that are made and to ensure that everybody in this quite sensitive area is treated with decency and respect. Looking forward is important now.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, could the Minister tell us what action the Government are taking in other sectors to ensure the prompt implementation of the Supreme Court’s clear confirmation that sex in the Equality Act must mean biological sex, not gender identity? For instance, in policing, the National Police Chiefs’ Council says
“we will not rush our response”,
which means in practice, police officers will still be allowed, or required, to strip search members of the public of the opposite sex to themselves. This does not require lots of practicality about implementation; this can change from one day to the next.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am sure the noble Baroness is right that a whole range of different organisations are currently considering their practice. The Supreme Court ruling brings clarity about the definition of sex, and it is on that basis that a whole range of organisations, including the police, should be considering what changes are necessary.
Licensing Act 2003 (Victory in Europe Day Licensing Hours) Order 2025
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the draft Order laid before the House on 23 April be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 6 May.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Domestic Abuse) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2025
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
That the draft Order and Regulations laid before the House on 13 and 20 March be approved.
Relevant document: 22nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 6 May.
Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill
Wednesday 7th May 2025
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberSentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill 2024-26 View all Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 30 April 2025 - (30 Apr 2025)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
My Lords, I want to extend my thanks to the many noble Lords who have already contributed to debates in this House on this matter, which have provided me and the Government with valuable food for thought. I am also grateful to the noble Lords with whom I have spoken about this Bill, who have shared their wise counsel and wealth of experience regarding the matters on which it touches.
I know that all noble Lords will be looking forward to my noble friend Lady Nichols’ maiden speech. I welcome her to this place, and I know we will all benefit from her vast experience in public service.
I will start by recapping how we got here, as I believe that it is important to understand the Government’s intention behind the Bill. The Sentencing Council’s imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline helps judges, when sentencing an offender, to determine whether to impose a community order or a custodial sentence. In deciding which threshold has been met, judges are required by law to obtain a pre-sentence report, except in circumstances where the court considers such a report to be unnecessary. Pre-sentence reports are used to give the courts more context for the offending behaviour in a given case to aid judges and magistrates in making informed sentencing decisions. The current imposition guideline makes it clear that pre-sentence reports offer valuable assistance to the court when it decides whether to impose a community or custodial sentence.
Under the last Government, the Sentencing Council consulted on a revised imposition guideline. This guideline was due to come into effect on 1 April this year and includes additional guidance on when courts should request pre-sentence reports. It noted that pre-sentence reports will “normally be considered necessary” for certain offenders, including those from an ethnic, cultural or faith minority. In effect, this could have led to offenders receiving differential treatment in terms of access to pre-sentence reports based on their faith or the colour of their skin. These changes were welcomed by the previous Administration.
By contrast, both the Lord Chancellor and I have been clear that that would be unacceptable—not least for the victims, who put their trust in the criminal justice system. Singling out one group over another undermines the idea that we all stand equal before the law, a principle that has been at the forefront of our justice system and our society for centuries. This is the position that the Lord Chancellor communicated in person and in writing to the Sentencing Council. The Lord Chancellor first used her existing power, meeting the Sentencing Council’s chair on 13 March to ask it to reconsider its approach. Unfortunately, the council declined to amend the guidelines significantly or re-consult on its approach. While the Sentencing Council remains of a different opinion from the Government, I am grateful to its chair, Lord Justice Davis, for the engagement he has had with the Lord Chancellor and for the cordial conversations that I know we will continue to have.
I am very thankful that, following its engagement, the Sentencing Council has paused implementation of the revised imposition guideline while Parliament has its say. I am also grateful to noble Lords who have shared their expertise in this area with me. It is clear that the intention behind the Sentencing Council’s changes to the guidelines was an honourable one: to address the inequalities in our justice system. The issue of disparities in the criminal justice system is a serious matter, and one which this Government are determined to address.
However, this is a question of policy, one which must be addressed by government, accountable to the public and Parliament, and via the ballot box. As noble Lords will be aware, this issue has prompted debate here, in the other place and publicly on the correct roles and responsibilities of the Sentencing Council, and the Lord Chancellor is carefully reviewing and considering all options. I am sure that that will be discussed more in your Lordships’ House in the months ahead.
However, I want to be clear that this is beyond the scope of the narrow Bill at hand today. The Sentencing Council, although only 15 years old, holds an important position within the justice system, and any changes to its function and powers must be considered carefully. I know that several noble and learned Lords have had roles on the Sentencing Council and its predecessor and will have valuable views to add as this is considered. It would not have been right to address this through this targeted and narrow legislation.
I am proud of our judiciary, and I know that they are the envy of the world: rightly respected for their independence, impartiality and fairness. I know that the Lord Chancellor takes her oath to defend the independence of the judiciary very seriously. I reassure noble Lords that nothing we are considering in terms of the future of the Sentencing Council will change the Government’s clear commitment to defend the rule of law.
I turn now to what the Bill does. Clause 1 amends Section 120 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. It provides that sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports may not include provision framed by reference to offenders’ different personal characteristics, including race, religion, belief or cultural background. This would mean that any existing guidelines on pre-sentence reports which are framed by singling out personal characteristics would cease to have effect.
The Sentencing Council will therefore not be able to make such provision in future guidelines. The changes made by this clause therefore prevent the Sentencing Council making policy about when pre-sentence reports should be obtained. That would risk differential treatment before the law and would undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system.
In bringing forward the Bill, the Government’s objective is to help ensure equality before the law, so that offenders are treated according to their individual circumstances and not by virtue of their membership of a particular group. We have therefore used the term “personal characteristics” in the Bill to ensure that sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports cannot include provision framed by reference to any specific personal characteristic of an offender, and we have accompanied this by listing some characteristics in the Bill, including race, religion or belief, or cultural background.
However, this is a non-exhaustive list, intended to give context to the term. The Government intend that the Bill will also apply to a wider range of characteristics including sex, gender identity, physical disabilities and pregnancy. We have also used the term “demographic cohort” in the Bill’s Explanatory Notes, to help provide additional context to the meaning of “personal characteristics”.
I will now make clear what the Bill does not do. It does not interfere with the courts’ duties to obtain a pre-sentence report in appropriate cases—for example, those involving primary carers and victims of domestic abuse. The Bill does not interfere with the courts’ ability to request a pre-sentence report. The Sentencing Code is clear that courts must obtain pre-sentence reports unless they consider it to be unnecessary. The Bill does not affect this presumption. The independent judiciary will retain discretion to make decisions about where pre-sentence reports are necessary based on the facts of the case. The Bill does not stop the Sentencing Council advising, in general terms, that pre-sentence reports should be sought in cases where the court would benefit from an assessment of an offender’s personal circumstances.
Also, as detailed in the Explanatory Notes, the Bill does not change existing precedent where the courts have determined that pre-sentence reports are necessary or desirable. Recently, in R v Thompson, the Court of Appeal emphasised their importance in sentencing pregnant women or women who have recently given birth. In R v Meanley, the court referenced the value of pre-sentence reports for young defendants. In R v Kurmekaj, the defendant had a traumatic upbringing and vulnerability, and was a victim of modern slavery. The court considered that these factors meant that a pre-sentence report should have been requested. Instead, the Bill narrowly focuses on the issue at hand.
I welcome the use of pre-sentence reports, which are a valuable tool for sentencers in appropriate cases. The number of pre-sentence reports declined by 44% between 2013 and 2023. The Probation Service is under a huge amount of pressure, which is indicative of wider capacity issues in the system. This Government have acted quickly to create capacity within the Probation Service to ensure that our hard-working probation officers have more time for vital work such as this. We have announced plans to recruit a further 1,000 probation officers in the coming year, on top of the 1,300 extra probation officers recruited in the last financial year. I am continuing to work with the Probation Service to ensure that it can deliver a high and consistent standard of service.
We are also working to better understand what drives disparities in the criminal justice system. The Sentencing Council has acknowledged that the causes of disparities in sentencing outcomes are “unclear”. Understanding the data is the key first step to deciding what we must do to address these disparities. The Lord Chancellor set out during the Bill’s Second Reading in the other place that she has commissioned a review of the data held by the Ministry of Justice on disparities in the justice system. On the timeline for the review, noble Lords can rest assured that we are working at pace on this and will update the House in due course. I assure your Lordships that this is an issue which the Government take incredibly seriously and are determined to address. However, this cannot be done at the expense of equality before the law.
In conclusion, by preventing the Sentencing Council making guidelines on pre-sentence reports with reference to personal characteristics, this Bill ensures that we all continue to stand equal before the law. I urge noble Lords to support the Bill and the principle that drives it—of equality before the law. I beg to move.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I welcome the Minister to his place and look forward very much to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Nichols of Selby. I broadly welcome this legislation while regretting its necessity and that we have reached such an unsatisfactory juncture. I am indebted to Policy Exchange for its excellent paper on this issue, Two-Tier Justice.
The impasse between the Lord Chancellor and the Sentencing Council was significant in its problematic challenge to parliamentary sovereignty, its undermining of the faith and trust that the public must have in the judicial system, and the concept of equal treatment under the law. It further undermined the long-established and quite proper constitutional convention of judicial independence and the separation of powers between the judiciary, legislature and the Executive.
The imbroglio arose from the consultation process on the sentencing guidelines, which was over two years in duration and culminated in January this year. The Sentencing Council’s wilful refusal, enunciated in its letter to the Lord Chancellor on 27 March, to amend its proposed guidelines demonstrated an obtuse disregard for democratic proprieties and quite legitimate criticisms of its actions in formalising two-tier sentencing and differential treatment by the courts based on membership of ethnic, faith and cultural minorities. This is at a time when the public are acutely aware and particularly mindful of fairness and appropriateness, or otherwise, in a number of high-profile criminal cases as reported in the media. This issue transcends party-political differences. It is about whether an elected Parliament and Government Ministers who are accountable to the electorate should be pre-eminent in setting policy in judicial and relevant related matters.
It is appropriate to make the point that pre-sentence reports are a vital tool for magistrates and judges, not least in securing a more comprehensive assessment of an offender and balancing the decision to impose a non-custodial sentence or a term of imprisonment. The previous 2017 imposition guidelines quite rightly made no reference to different cohorts that should receive a pre-sentence report. The new guidelines reference gender, ethnicity, pregnancy, transgender status, and addiction issues, as well as domestic abuse, modern slavery, grooming and other exploitation issues.
The automatic granting of a pre-sentence report to some groups but the availability of only discretionary powers to others was and is wrong. These proposals were divisive, racist and corrosive towards community cohesion. Essentially, if you are a white man who is not religious, you are, or were, under a material and substantive disadvantage in the proposed sentencing regime. The Lord Chancellor was right to highlight this in her letter to the chairman of the Sentencing Council, Lord Justice William Davis, on 6 March.
The fundamental question is: why were these new rules proposed, and on what evidential basis? The Sentencing Council’s 2023 Review of Trend Analysis of the Sentencing Council’s Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences Guideline found that
“for those groups with larger volumes of offenders sentenced, there is predominantly no clear evidence of differential impacts of the Imposition guideline”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, was surely right to state:
“The correct constitutional position would be ... that a judge already has tools at their disposal to seek pre-sentencing reports and that they … do so based on an individual case on a case-by-case basis, rather than categorising certain groups”.
Indeed, we have existing primary legislation in place to allow judges to discharge their duties quite properly, with appropriate evidential discretion, via the Sentencing Act 2020.
The Sentencing Council consultation was flawed and inappropriate, dominated as it was by liberal, self-serving and partisan groups that disregarded the wider societal need for a criminal justice system which is fair, impartial, open and transparent. For the avoidance of doubt, it is not for a judge, however eminent, to unilaterally determine sentencing policy, especially when the Lord Chancellor objects. Parliament has never legislated for it, and it is clear that it is for the judiciary to interpret and apply the law and not to formulate policy on an ad hoc basis. It is for Parliament to set overarching sentencing policy and criminal justice policy while remaining aloof from sentencing of individual offenders by trial judges and magistrates—that also goes for the appellate courts.
So Lord Justice Davis’s rationale in interpreting the role of the Sentencing Council was erroneous. In his letter to the Secretary of State for Justice, Lord Justice Davis referred to the consultation process, stating:
“It was decided that to remove the list would have been contrary to the majority view expressed by consultees”.
That “majority view” among the consultees, that there should be a specified list of groups that automatically receive a pre-sentence report, is unsurprising. The consultation process received 150 responses, 40 of which came from charity or non-governmental organisations. They have every right, and perhaps a duty—organisations such as the Prison Reform Trust, Clinks, the Centre for Women’s Justice and the Howard League for Penal Reform are perfectly entitled—to put forward their views but the Sentencing Council should perhaps have had a more balanced view rather than looking just at the majority of opinion in this particularly niche and narrow consultation.
I think the role of the Government, Ministers and Parliament was misunderstood by the eminent Lord Justice Davis. He questioned whether it was in the power of the Minister to amend Section 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 in respect of proposing to the Sentencing Council that a sentencing guideline be prepared or revised by the council, and whether it was appropriate in this case. Although the legal advice that Lord Justice Davis intends to obtain has not, as I understand, been published, it seems on an ordinary reading of the legislation, given that the words of the statute are plain and unequivocal, to be a novel approach if the Lord Chancellor is not permitted to propose a revision of the guideline.
Lord Justice Davis also claims that the inclusion of specific cohorts in the imposition guideline is not
“a policy decision of any significance”,
but that is not the case. Even someone as distinguished as Lord Justice Davis must understand that he cannot unilaterally determine, in opposition to the Lord Chancellor, a policy that the Government are obliged to follow. He also says in his letter, rather oddly:
“All judges and magistrates are required to apply any relevant guideline unless the interests of justice require otherwise. In practice, the guidelines form the backbone of every sentencing decision made throughout England and Wales. There is general acceptance of the guidelines by the judiciary because they emanate from an independent body on which”—
this is an important bit—
“judicial members are in the majority. The Council preserves the critical constitutional position of the independent judiciary in relation to sentencing”.
He goes on to say:
“In criminal proceedings where the offender is the subject of prosecution by the state, the state should not determine the sentence imposed on an individual offender. If sentencing guidelines of whatever kind were to be dictated in any way by Ministers of the Crown, this principle would be breached”.
I believe that Lord Justice Davis is mistaken for the following reasons. First, the critical constitutional position of the independent judiciary relates to the sentencing of individual offenders, not the overarching policy. Secondly, Lord Justice Davis implies that the judiciary accept, and presumably follow, sentencing guidelines only
“because they emanate from an independent body on which judicial members are in the majority”,
and I believe that is wrong. Thirdly, the letter from the Lord Chancellor that Lord Justice Davis was replying to does not state or even suggest that Ministers should play any role in the sentences imposed on individual offenders. To suggest otherwise, as Lord Justice Davis does, is disingenuous, I suggest. Fourthly, and lastly, the sense that courts are not part of the state is not only wrong by any ordinary understanding of what the state consists of but is explicitly contradicted by the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary’s own website, which states:
“The justice system is one of the three branches of the state. The other two branches are the executive, or the government, and the legislature, which is the two Houses of Parliament”.
Presumably, when Lord Justice Davis refers to the state, he means the Executive.
It is right that the Government have taken swift action to legislate, but the Minister should also explain and look to the workings of his department, given that in the 12 months to January 2025, senior officials from the Ministry of Justice attended meetings of the Sentencing Council when these proposals were put forward, and yet they did not alert Ministers to the fact that the proposed guidelines would be completely unacceptable to both Conservative and Labour Government Ministers.
It is right that we open up and more closely examine the workings and membership of the Sentencing Council and that it is subject to proper scrutiny; for instance, with confirmation hearings in Parliament. We must make sure that something like this does not happen again. Guidelines for the future should be required to be confirmed by orders in Parliament before coming into effect. Finally, it is right that parliamentary sovereignty has been exerted in this case, while judicial independence remains protected. The Bill is a vital and timely intervention, and for that reason I am pleased on this occasion to support it.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I start by saying how sorry I was to hear of the death of the noble and learned Lord—who I just think of as Terry—Lord Etherton. His words were always wise, measured and compassionate, and we will miss him. More positively, we look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Nichols.
This one-clause Bill provokes such strong feelings, particularly when there is much we can agree on, but our approach from the Liberal Democrat Benches differs a good deal from that of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. This must be one of those situations where one really does not want to start from here, not only because I would like to rewind, but because we are expecting very soon the review of sentencing by David Gauke. That should be the basis for a debate about sentencing because the debate needs to be wider than this Bill.
We are very concerned about fast-tracking this legislation, which we do not see as necessary or desirable. That is a constitutional point. I am a member of the Constitution Committee. I think the only members who are able to talk today are my noble friend Lord Beith and I. That committee takes the view that fast-tracking is not necessary and says so in a report to the House that was agreed at about noon today and published at about the point that we started this debate. Obviously, the Minister is not going to be able to respond to it today, but I urge that the MoJ responds to the points made by the committee well before Committee stage so that it is properly before the House and considered.
Pre-sentence reports are important and ideally should be for everyone—unless, of course, the court considers that they are not necessary—but the Probation Service is very overstretched. The Lord Chancellor said she was clearing the way to free up capacity in the Probation Service, so we will be interested to know the details of at what cost that might be to the service’s other work. That in itself deserves debate.
The Justice and Home Affairs Committee of this House, in a report Cutting Crime: Better Community Sentences, spent a little time on pre-sentence reports. I was chairing the committee at the time. The Minister was very welcoming of the report when we debated it. I recall he said that he had read it three times. I suspect his workload is such that he does not manage that for many reports, but we appreciated that. We referred to pre-sentence reports and their purpose, which we described as
“providing an expert assessment of the nature and causes of the offender’s behaviour, the risk they pose and to whom”,
and so on.
Witnesses to our committee raised concerns about the quality of reports, in part because of the pressures on the service, meaning that sentencers—we took the view—do not have the confidence in them that they should have. If a report falls short, the sentencer might not be able to consider an offender as an individual. We heard of PSRs based on what was happening in offenders’ lives eight or nine months previously and not taking into account steps they had taken in that period. We were told in evidence of the view that they were a “tick-box exercise” and not being done in a “meaningful, person-centred way”.
Sentencers may include mental health treatment requirements and alcohol treatment requirements, both of which require the consent of the offender, and drug rehabilitation requirements, which require suitability conditions met by probation making a recommendation to the court. For a sentence to be rehabilitative—one of the objectives of sentencing—it is obvious that the PSR process needs time and the offender to be engaged. The committee said that PSRs
“are an essential part of the sentencing process. They allow courts to tailor sentences to individual circumstances and give sentencers confidence that specific requirements are suitable and available”—
that is another matter—“in their area”. The Government agreed. I stress “individual” because one has surely to consider the whole person, and how do you do that while excluding characteristics?
As well as agreeing on the importance of PSRs, I think most of us would agree on the importance of equality. But that does not mean starting from a point of equality. How can we ignore how people with some characteristics, in particular those picked out in Clause 1, are overrepresented in the criminal justice system? The Sentencing Council acknowledges this in correspondence, and so does the Lord Chancellor.
It is then argued that differential treatment on the basis of race or ethnicity offends the principle of fair treatment before the law. Is “fair” really a synonym for “equal”? I take the view that one has to recognise where there is inequality in order to address it, and addressing it does not always—and not in this context—mean treating everyone the same. As the Sentencing Council notes, there are inequalities in the sentencing regime, for instance around age, which the Bill does not spell out, although this of course comes within the non-exhaustive list that is not on the face of the Bill.
The council’s view is that
“providing a sentencer with as much information as possible about the offender is one means by which … disparity might be addressed”.
While the council agreed with the Government that
“any systemic issue relating to different ethnic groups will be a matter of policy”,
Lord Justice Davis, who has been referred to, said that sentencers must still
“do all that they can to avoid a difference in outcome based on ethnicity. The judge will be better equipped to do that if they have as much information as possible about the offender”.
The Constitution Committee is currently undertaking work on the rule of law, and I am assured by those who are far more expert than me that positive measures are not necessarily incompatible with the rule of law. To me, the term “personal characteristics”, without definition, is confusing. The division between characteristics and circumstances is very grey. What, for instance, is addiction? I think it is a characteristic. That would undermine treatment, to which I have referred.
The list is not exhaustive, as I have said, and that adds to the confusion. There is a risk of confusing characteristics under this Bill with protected characteristics defined for a different piece of legislation. The Constitution Committee is also critical of the Bill because of the uncertainty—I might say incoherence—in this area. I really look forward to the MoJ’s response to the points that we make in the report.
The committee also refers to retroactivity, which offends constitutionality. Can the Minister explain to the House what is to happen with pre-sentence reports that are currently—or will be at the point when the Bill becomes law, as I assume it will—in the pipeline, including reports that have been prepared but are not yet before the court? Are they to be reviewed or rewritten? It is really quite confusing to fast-track a Bill to such an extent that commencement is immediate; normally there is time for those affected by legislation to prepare.
I keep coming back in my mind to the question of how one can sentence without recognising the whole person. I also wonder how one can amend a one-clause Bill without being accused of wrecking it, but I know that my noble friend Lord Marks has been thinking about this very carefully, and I am hopeful that we will find a way to make it a Bill that is both coherent and accessible. I wish—not only for procedural reasons but because the focus should be on an effective, trusted system—that we were not starting from here, and I hope this is not the finishing point.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
May I add very briefly to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the late Lord Etherton? He was a lawyer of the highest ability. He had great skill and was a man of real quality. I worked with him for many years at the Bar, and as a colleague on the Bench. All those qualities were shown in abundance in what he achieved in that period. But he also achieved a great deal in this House and took on number of causes that some might not have found popular. He was a great man and will be greatly missed.
I turn very briefly to make three points about the Bill. First, although we have been accorded a long time to speak, I do not intend to take advantage of that to repeat what I already said at length prior to the Easter Recess. I explained then why I thought the Bill was not necessary, and I regret that the Government feel it is. I very much hoped then—and still hope today—that this issue can be resolved without legislation, but I will not repeat what I have already said to that end.
Secondly, I agree with the Minister that this is a very narrow Bill. That is no excuse for not getting it right, but it is a narrow Bill. It is important to note that it is not the occasion for the kind of wide-ranging issues such as those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, to be raised. Therefore, I do not intend to answer them. If they are raised on a subsequent occasion, that will be the appropriate time, but this is a narrow Bill.
I say that because I think it is important that the Sentencing Council and its predecessor bodies, the Sentencing Guidelines Council and the Sentencing Advisory Panel, have worked well, although I ought to declare that I was a member of the Sentencing Guidelines Council, had a hand in setting up the Sentencing Council and was its president for four years until 2017. If we look at what it has done and analyse the constitutional position, I do not believe there is any basis for making any real change. It has been a great success as it brings together two arms of the state, the judiciary and the Executive, under the supervision of the third arm, Parliament, in producing a very sensible way of dealing with balancing the role of Parliament in setting policy and the role of the judiciary in sentencing individuals. That is a complex issue, and I would like to leave it for an occasion where it properly arises. It does not arise today.
Thirdly—this point does arise today—there is the definition of personal characteristics. This has already been touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I think it could, with advantage, be clarified. It would be helpful to understand why the definition is different to the definition of protected characteristics in Section 4 of the Equality Act. I note that the Minister has already referred to the remarks made by Sir Nicholas Dakin in the other place on 30 April, where he said
“we are clear that it is intended to cover a wider range of characteristics including sex, gender identity, physical disabilities and pregnancy status”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30/4/25; col. 388.]
There are a lot of other characteristics. Before trying to amend it, it would be helpful to have a clear explanation—I have given the Minister notice of this—of why the course chosen has been chosen.
That is more important in the light of paragraph 14 of the Explanatory Notes, as it uses the term “particular circumstances” of individuals in apparent contradiction to “personal characteristics”. I am not sure that I understand the difference. It would be helpful if the Minister could try to explain it. In any event, with that explanation, we can look forward to amending—I hope with considerable advantage—this part of the Bill without anyone being accused of wrecking it.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, I declare my interest as Anglican Bishop for prisons. I am grateful to be speaking in this Second Reading debate. I too greatly look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Nichols. Having said that, I do not believe this is a debate we should be having at all. I do not believe this rather theatrical legislation is necessary.
In a world of sufficient resources, as has already been said, there would be comprehensive pre-sentence reports for everyone, to which careful attention would be paid in court. If we have to prioritise PSRs, then it makes sense to prioritise those we know are especially vulnerable, or where there is evidence of disproportionate outcomes from the justice system. Will the Minister comment on why he thinks there was such shock at this apparent two-tier justice with regard to ethnicity but not the other cohorts in the guidance, such as young adults and pregnant women? Do the Government believe the issues raised in the landmark report by the current Foreign Secretary almost eight years ago are now a thing of the past? Is there no role for judges in mitigating the issues raised in that report?
The use of the Sentencing Council guidelines apparently to feed a culture war is distressing. The allegation of two-tier sentencing based around race, religion, belief or cultural background is damaging to public understanding. This is already shaped heavily by media headlines and the shocking and extreme cases of violent crimes, which are not the norm. Public understanding of why and how criminal sentences are handed down is severely lacking, as evidenced by the Justice Select Committee in 2023 and a recent Prison Reform Trust report detailing a citizen jury exercise. My own experience of talking to teenagers in schools is that more information about sentencing results in more considered responses and a greater sense of engagement with what we are trying to achieve, which surely goes beyond mere punishment.
At the heart of the Christian gospel is a God who holds together both justice and mercy. We need a big long-term vision. Surely long-term vision must be about transforming lives and communities, and that includes victims as well as offenders, recognising that many offenders are also victims.
If we are committed to the transformation of society, we need to take account of the impact of sentencing on families and the wider community. I am not saying that people who commit crimes should not receive punishment, but I am saying that sentencing should be much more than this and give the best possible outcomes for society.
In a recent judicial critique focused on sentence inflation, four former Lords Chief Justice, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, highlighted that people in prison are individuals, not statistics, and that the
“consequences of imprisonment on people’s lives—in prison and upon return to the community—need to be considered in the whole”.
They go on to say:
“Evidence suggests that what happens during and after a sentence, including rehabilitative interventions and resettlement support, is more important than sentence length”.
If we are to treat people in the justice system as individuals, that surely includes taking into account people’s circumstances, such as whether a woman is pregnant, and their characteristics, such as neurodiversity. I echo what was said about characteristics. We cannot pretend that circumstances and characteristics do not matter. Wise sentencing is threatened by this am-dram politics, and the Bill risks taking us backwards, not forwards. I firmly believe that we need less political control over sentencing, not more.
I urge the noble Lord to revisit the House of Commons Justice Committee’s 2023 recommendation of the establishment of an independent advisory body on sentencing. I would propose an additional step: a commitment from the Treasury, set out to Parliament, where Ministers propose to expand or lengthen custodial sentences against recommendations from the advisory board, thus resetting the relationship between politics and justice, including the public purse.
There is more I could say—much more—but I will end by engaging with the Government’s own rationale for this legislation. The Justice Secretary says that inequality in society is a matter for policy and not for the judiciary. How, then, will the Government create an equal society over their term of office so that these guidelines become redundant?
Baroness Nichols of Selby (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a profound honour to rise before noble Lords today and make my maiden speech in this esteemed Chamber. I am deeply grateful to my sponsors, my noble friends Lady Anderson and Lady Winterton, and to Black Rod and all the House staff, who have been so welcoming since my introduction—particularly the doorkeepers. I am grateful also to my noble friend the Leader, Lady Smith, and the Chief Whip, my noble friend Lord Kennedy, for their personal support since my peerage was announced. To be asked to join your Lordships’ House is a privilege I do not take lightly, and I intend to serve with the same dedication that has guided me throughout my life.
My journey to this moment has been shaped by my roots in Selby in North Yorkshire, a place that has defined who I am and the values I hold dear. It is a town built on industry, hard work and community, a place where people look out for one another and where solidarity is not just a word but a way of life. My connection to Selby runs deep. My father was born there, although his life was not always kind to him. His mother died from tuberculosis when he was six years old, and she was laid to rest in a pauper’s grave in Selby Cemetery —a stark reminder of the struggle so many families faced. My mother, one of 10 children from Spennymoor in County Durham, also knew hardship. Her father, a miner, lost his sight in a pit accident. Yet, even through adversity, my parents found strength, love and purpose. They met during the Second World War: my father was stationed at Burghfield Common and my mother was evacuated nearby. They married, settled in Selby and raised a family in a council house on one of the largest estates in the town. Their values, community resilience and public service shaped my path in life.
It was there that I attended Selby Abbey primary school, following in my family’s footsteps. I recently visited the year six group, who wanted to know about the House of Lords. My early years were filled with memories of the shipyard—yes, a shipyard—on the banks of the River Ouse, and the sight of workers leaving on bicycles as the buzzer sounded, a scene that spoke of industry and pride. But perhaps my most memorable early experience was the time when my mother, after a long walk into town, returned home only for my father to ask, “Where’s Wendy?” To her horror, she had left me outside Woolworths in my pram. Thankfully, I was still there, blissfully unaware that I had been momentarily misplaced.
My professional journey took me from catering college in Leeds and York. I became a school meals cook and then started work in the kitchens of a pit-top canteen at one of the five super-pits around Selby, and later moved into residential care for the elderly, following in my parents’ footsteps once more. It was at Carentan House, formerly a workhouse, where I truly found my calling. I saw at first hand the importance of dignity in care and the power of collective action to bring about change. It was there that I became active in the National Union of Public Employees, which later became UNISON. For over four decades, I have worked for North Yorkshire Council, during which I have fought for the rights of working people, serving as branch secretary in North Yorkshire and in 2015-16 serving as president of UNISON.
Public service has always been in my blood. Like my parents before me, I became a Labour councillor, though my route to office was far from conventional. In 1999, a miscounted vote led to an incorrect result being declared. It took a trip to the High Court and the oversight of a judge to correct the mistake. In a moment that I will never forget, he turned to me at the end and said, “I have always wanted to say these words: ‘I hereby declare Wendy Ruth Nichols duly elected’”. That experience taught me that democracy is precious, but it also requires vigilance.
Beyond local government, I had the privilege of serving on the national executive committee of the Labour Party for nearly 14 years, including some of our most challenging times in our party’s history. I am proud of that work, because I believe that politics should be about service, about building a fairer society and about ensuring that those who come after us inherit something better.
As I take my place in your Lordships’ House, I do so with immense gratitude but also a sense of personal loss. My husband Keith, a proud railwayman and a trade unionist, passed away in 2008. My parents, who shaped so much of who I am, died within a month of each other in 2009. I wish that they could be here to see this moment and share in this honour, but I know that they are with me in spirit, just as I know that my greatest legacy lies not in titles, robes or offices but in my children, Rachel and Shaun, my daughter-in-law Jenny and my six wonderful grandchildren: Brandan, Fiona, Libby, Ella, Michael and Aimee.
I now turn to the debate. This is, again, something of interest to me. Over the years, I have represented many of our members in the Probation Service and have seen the amount of work that they have to do. While PSRs themselves are not an indication of sentence, we know that there is evidence that they are an important element in sentencing. Receiving a PSR is more likely to discourage a judge from sending an offender to prison, and therefore will help to reduce pressure on prison numbers. We know that that there are inequalities and disparities in society and in our justice system, which must be addressed. But these guidelines amount to treating people differently before the law, according to their race or their religion, which breaks an ideal that our justice system is built on: equality for all before the law. One of our most closely held ideals is equality before the law and that we can never have two-tier justice because it completely undermines public confidence.
Clearly, the Sentencing Council is straying into matters of policy in trying to correct for racial disparities using differential treatment methods. Pre-sentence reports are very important to give the judge as much information about the offender as possible and can cut levels of reoffending when used properly. However, I hope that the Minister will agree with me that they should be available for all offenders and that access to a pre-sentence report should not be determined by an offender’s ethnicity, culture or faith.
Pre-sentence reports are important but, very often, probation is stretched so thin that officers do not have time to complete them. What will the Government do to ensure that, where a PSR is required and requested, the Probation Service will have the capacity to do that?
I note that the Bill removes the whole problematic section of the guidelines, but the Lord Chancellor has been clear that pregnant women or victims of domestic abuse would still very much be expected to have a pre-sentence report.
I look forward to working with all your Lordships in the months and years ahead. I bring with me the values of Selby: community, fairness and a belief that we all do better when we stand together. I thank noble Lords for their time and their welcome, and I look forward to playing my part in this great institution. The path from the pit-top canteen to the red Benches of this House has been eventful, and I have no doubt that the next chapter will be just as remarkable.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, it is an honour as well as a pleasure to be the first to congratulate my noble friend on her outstanding and, if I may say so, very moving maiden speech. She brings to this House deep experience and wisdom. She and her loving family have met challenges and setbacks that many in this House will not have experienced. She has faced adversity and knows as well as anyone what it is like to be brought up, to work and to live in a world where people do not always enjoy the good things that many of us in this House take, and have always taken, for granted.
It was clear in her speech that she understands deeply how people experience life. Her brilliant reputation, from her union work with NUPE and then with UNISON, shows that absolutely clearly. There will be many in Selby and beyond who owe a huge amount to her hard work and commitment. She told us in her speech that her values are community, resilience and public service. Whether in working for her constituents when she was a councillor, working for North Yorkshire Council for many years, her work for UNISON and her fellow workers, or performing her important and invaluable—I mean invaluable; many on this side will know exactly what I am saying—political work, she has truly lived up to her values. All of us who have had the honour of listening to her speech today look forward to hearing her many times in this House.
On the debate, I should declare some interests: first as chair of the Leicester Community Advice and Law Centre; secondly, as joint chair of the All-Party Group on Access to Justice; and, thirdly, as a member of this House’s Justice and Home Affairs Committee. Before making the few points that I intend to make, I want to stress—and I think it needs to be stressed—how the Ministry of Justice under this Government already has a record to be proud of. It is not only in the quality of its Ministers, particularly in this House, but in what, against crushing obstacles, it has already achieved, given the ridiculous, unsatisfactory budget it has to work with.
For me, the small but important increases in the legal aid area, and particularly the setting up of the Gauke and Leveson reviews, are among the MoJ’s most significant achievements. However, I cannot say that I am equally delighted to see the Bill before the House this afternoon, taking up precious parliamentary time that could be spent legislating, or at least debating, other more vital justice issues. Frankly, I find it hard to accept that we could not have resolved this impasse without the need for legislation, let alone fast-tracked legislation.
After all, there is an overwhelming consensus as to the value and necessity of pre-sentence reports. In addition, there is surely widespread agreement that the Gauke review, due out later this month, and the legislation that follows it, will be of much greater significance than the Bill as far as sentencing is concerned. It will also, of course, be relevant to the issues we are discussing this afternoon at Second Reading. The danger, it seems to me, is one of overlegislating. By not allowing something as broad as personal characteristics to be taken into account in sentencing, we may, almost by accident, be excluding other factors that are highly relevant to any sentencing decision.
This takes me to an amendment moved but not voted on in the other place. It was in the name of the right honourable Member, Jeremy Wright, a distinguished Attorney-General in the coalition and succeeding Tory Governments. He argued, cogently, that if anything that comes within the broad category of the term “personal characteristics” is forbidden from being considered by the Sentencing Council when setting out its guidelines, this could well cover other personal characteristics—he mentioned physical or learning difficulties, or severe injuries—which is surely not the intention of the Bill and could make the difficult task of the sentencer even more difficult. Jeremy Wright suggested a change in wording to “demographic cohort”, thus giving Ministers their point but not making the result confused or unintelligible. I am attracted by this approach and hope that the Government, following this Second Reading, will carefully consider Mr Wright’s proposition, if not using his actual words.
I want to make two final points. Both the current chair of the Commons Justice Committee, Andy Slaughter MP, and his predecessor, Sir Bob Neill, have expressed regret that the Bill, and particularly the events leading up to it, have been used by some to undermine judicial independence and to allow ad hominem attacks on judges under the guise of belated objections to these guidelines. I agree entirely with the two chairs of the Commons Justice Committee. Alas, today we see in other countries around the world, including, surprisingly, the United States of America, how easy it is for Governments, and Oppositions, to attack the judges. As a matter of course, we do not do that in this country, I hope, and I find it more than sad that—indeed, I am angry that—it has happened here.
Independence of the judiciary is of course a fundamental part of the rule of law. Attacking judges undermines that independence, and all of us should resist the temptation, however irresistible some politicians seem to find it. We should know better.
What unites us, and what makes this legislation quite hard to understand, is that all of us believe in the importance of pre-sentence reports, which play a vital part in sentencing. I practised criminal law for over 25 years, defending more than prosecuting. That was some time ago, of course, but in those days, it was inconceivable that a first-time offender—or any offender, really—who might face a first custodial sentence would be sentenced without a properly prepared pre-sentence report. By properly prepared, I do not mean a 10-minute interview in the cells and then back into court; I mean a well prepared and thorough report, with a probation officer being given the time and space to do their job.
We were all surely shocked to learn that the number of pre-sentence reports has fallen by 42% between 2015 and 2023, from 160,000 to 90,000. I am afraid that one has to ask the question: how many of these reports are having to be prepared much too quickly?
I hope we can all agree that pre-sentence reports are an essential part of our system and cannot be allowed to be compromised for financial reasons. That is why the future of the Probation Service is so vital to this debate, and why, in my view, it would have been better, if possible, to have waited until the Gauke review and the legislation that follows it.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I too begin by paying tribute, briefly, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. He was a mentor and, for 25 years, along with his husband, Andrew, a close friend. I benefited from his counsel and friendship for many years, and I will miss him dearly, as I am sure many will in this House.
My spirits were, however, raised by the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Nichols of Selby. Her words were warm, moving, inspiring and thoughtful, so I am sure she will make a great contribution to this place.
Many of the points I wanted to make about the Bill have been made very eloquently by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and now by the noble Lord, Lord Bach. I should say that, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Bach, criminal law and criminal procedure is not within my field of academic expertise or practice at the Bar; the concerns I have about the Bill are of a more general nature.
I understand and respect the political considerations behind the Bill, but as with other brief and seemingly straightforward pieces of legislation, it lacks the necessary clarity. The main problem is, as we heard before, the concept of personal characteristics. The prohibition is by reference to this concept. The Bill does not contain a definition of personal characteristics but provides a non-exhaustive list. It leaves open the question of what other characteristics might count as personal characteristics under the Bill.
At paragraph 14 of the Explanatory Notes, the effect of the two key subsections of the Bill is described as follows:
“Sentencing Guidelines cannot be issued to state that it should generally be necessary to obtain a pre-sentence report based on an offender’s membership of a particular demographic cohort, rather than the particular circumstances of that individual”.
The Explanatory Notes thus suggest that the concept of personal characteristics is related to membership of demographic cohorts. The Sentencing Council’s draft guidelines on the imposition of community and custodial sentences, which prompted the adoption of the Bill, said that a pre-sentence report would be necessary if the offender belonged to one or more cohorts. The guidelines did not describe the cohorts as demographic, because they included characteristics that would not generally be understood as being demographic.
It may be that the addition of the adjective “demographic” in the Explanatory Notes was designed to give more specificity, but, unfortunately, the categories of personal characteristics specified in Clause 1(3) seem only to add confusion. To begin with, we do not see the most obvious characteristic defining a demographic cohort—age. Moreover, the characteristics mentioned in the Bill, such as “belief” and “cultural background”, are not usually understood as characteristics defining membership of demographic cohorts. So I am not sure that the description in the Explanatory Notes of the cohorts as “demographic” really tells us very much about the meaning of personal characteristics.
Of the three personal characteristics that are expressly mentioned, two—“race” and “religion or belief”—are also protected characteristics under the Equality Act, while the third, “cultural background”, is not. By the way, cultural background is itself a rather vague notion. I was going to ask the Minister to provide some clarity on the relationship between personal characteristics in the Bill and protected characteristics under the Equality Act, but he addressed this issue in part in his introductory remarks. However, I am not sure that what he said makes the boundaries of the concept of “personal characteristics” any easier to identify. The Bill, as currently drafted, lends itself to both a broad and a narrow understanding of personal characteristics. Based on the Minister’s introductory remarks, it seems that the Government take the view that the broad interpretation is to be preferred. Can he tell us whether this means that personal characteristics include all protected characteristics under the Equality Act, as well as other unspecified characteristics? If so, how do we identify these other characteristics?
The Explanatory Notes also draw a distinction, on which others have commented, between “personal characteristics” and “personal circumstances”, but can the Minister help us understand the dividing line between them? What about, for example, education or socioeconomic status: is that a characteristic or a circumstance?
There are constructive avenues through which some of these issues can be addressed and the clarity of the Bill can be enhanced. It will be important for us to consider these thoroughly in Committee to ensure that the Sentencing Council receives a far clearer legislative instruction than the current draft of the Bill provides.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, what a pleasure it was to listen to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Nichols of Selby. I am so glad that she took such trouble to explain the complicated background that brought her to this House; it greatly adds to our understanding of the way in which she will approach the work that she will undertake here. It was an inspiring speech, and she also contributed to the merits of this debate, which was very valuable.
I was the last to work with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, on his final contribution to the work of the House. He sat as chairman of the Holocaust Memorial Bill Select Committee, which was a difficult task because many Members of this House were very concerned about its provisions. He presided over it with great care, great skill and considerable charm. If he was unwell—and he may well have been—he did not show it, so he conducted his duties as chairman with a great deal of courage. It was typical of his kindness that, as we were approaching Christmas and finishing our work, he did something unusual that I have never encountered before: he, as chairman, sent each member of the committee a Christmas card. That may seem like a rather light point to make, but it was very typical of a man who was very down to earth, very kind and very thoughtful. We shall miss him very much.
As others have said, it would be lovely if we could resolve the dispute that has given rise to this Bill without legislation. However, we have the draft legislation, so I will address what we have before us without speculating as to what might have happened.
As we heard, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, there are two issues of principle that arise here: one is the independence of the judiciary and the need to respect that, and the second is the principle of equality before the law. As for the first, while the Sentencing Council includes the judiciary in its membership and is there to provide guidance to the judiciary, I do not see this as a reason why the Bill should not proceed. It does not compromise the independence of the judiciary in the exercise of its judicial function. It does not seek to deal with any decisions delivered in court by members of the judiciary. Its sole concern is with an issue of policy raised by the council’s revised guideline on the imposition of community and custodial sentences. It does not address the passing of a sentence itself.
It is surely right, then, that the Government should ask Parliament to engage with issues of that kind if they find themselves in disagreement with what the council has proposed. Our statutes are full of examples of situations where policy decisions about the nature and length of sentences are made by Parliament. It was not always so: when I began my practice as a lawyer—earlier than the noble Lord, Lord Bach— 50 years ago, Parliament did not really say anything about sentencing. There were no sentencing councils; it was all a matter for the judiciary. We have discovered that there is a need for balance and consistency. That is where the Sentencing Council comes in, and one can understand its function.
The fact that the Bill disagrees with a policy decision by the council does not in any way undermine or offend against the principle of the independence of the judiciary. It is the application of the principle that everyone should be equal before the law that lies behind the Bill. I understand the Government’s concern that the revised guideline does not seem to respect that principle. To say that a PSR is normally to be considered necessary if the offender is from an ethnic, cultural or faith minority community inevitably raises the question: what about the others? What about the rest of those who are not from those particular backgrounds?
As everyone knows, due to years of hollowing out by successive Governments, the Probation Service is short of money. It is underresourced, and that has given rise to the tragic situation that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, described so well—the diminution in the number and possibly the quality of the reports that are being delivered. The problem we are addressing is that although everybody who faces a custodial or community service should have a pre-sentence report, that is not something that the Probation Service can deliver for everybody.
As I was not part of the discussions, I do not know why the council felt it necessary to issue the revised guideline, but it seems likely that it felt that priority should be given to some in a situation where a PSR cannot be got for everyone. I can understand that approach.
I agree with the Government that there is a risk that the revised guideline, although sensible and understandable for the reason I just discussed, will disadvantage those who are not from the particular cohorts that it has identified. They face the prospect of being sentenced without a pre-sentence report, and that is a result that, in most cases, no one would wish to see.
My principal concern, which others have touched on, is with the wording of the Bill. This was indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Bach, told us, a point raised at Second Reading in the House of Commons by Sir Jeremy Wright, the former Attorney-General. He later tabled an amendment which addressed his point. As he said at Second Reading, we ought not to address one inequality by replacing it with another. He suggested, and I respectfully agree with him, that the phrase “personal characteristics” in proposed new Section 120(4) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 is too broad. As worded, it seems to prevent the issue of guidelines to deal with cases where information about a particular personal characteristic—I rephrase that as “an individual’s circumstances”, because it might include individuals’ circumstances too in that broad language—is crucial to the just disposal of the case.
Take circumstances such as impaired physical or mental health, autism or some other condition or disability of that kind, pregnancy, or the fact that a person is a primary carer. These are examples of cases to which, on its present wording, the wide prohibition that the Bill seeks to impose would seem to apply. Sir Jeremy’s point was that there is a danger of throwing the baby out with the bath-water, and he wondered why the more precise language in the Explanatory Notes was not used.
I ask the same question. The Explanatory Notes say that the Bill will
“prevent differential treatment … It does this by preventing the creation of a presumption regarding whether a pre-sentence report should be obtained based on an offender’s membership of a particular demographic cohort”.
Sir Jeremy had those particular words in mind. The use of the phrase
“membership of a particular demographic cohort”
would avoid extending the exclusion too far, while addressing more precisely the problem that the Government wish to address.
I have rather gathered from what the Minister said in introducing this debate that it is the Government’s intention that the prohibition should extend beyond the list which is given in the new subsection. That is troublesome. If the Government wish to stick to the language that they have chosen, they really should consider rewording the definition in new subsection (12). It says that, for the purposes of Section 120 of the 2009 Act,
“‘personal characteristics’ include, in particular”
listed items. The word “include”, if the Minister will forgive me for saying so, really is a weasel word. It stretches the point into the unknown, over which the House has no control or opportunity for scrutiny. When a prohibition is legislated for—a prohibition in particular—it should be precise. That would be achieved by replacing “include, in particular” with the simple word “means”, which would tie the prohibition down to the particular circumstances listed in the new subsection. That would give the prohibition a precise meaning, while meeting the very particular point in the revised guideline that the Government object to.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned, and the Constitution Committee’s report drew attention to, there are reasons to be concerned about the fact that the Bill is being fast-tracked. But the fact is that it is being fast-tracked, and I suggest that with it that brings a reluctance to accept amendments in this House which would require the Bill’s return to the other place. If that will be the position of the Minister, I very much regret it, because I hope he will listen very carefully when we reach Committee to ways in which, without undermining or destroying the Bill, we can improve the wording to make clear exactly what the prohibition is intended to do.
The point is that words matter—words always matter. It is the function of this House to address that point, which is why I gave the Minister notice of it in advance and why I am addressing it now, along with others with whom I respectfully agree. I hope that, in order to save time, if that is what the Government want to do, they will look at the wording of these provisions themselves and come up with an amendment of their own which meets the objection that I am raising. I look forward very much to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Baroness Mattinson (Lab)
My Lords, I start by congratulating my noble friend Lady Nichols on her absolutely brilliant and very moving maiden speech. It is great to be sitting here with her today.
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his excellent work on this very difficult issue. I believe he was absolutely right to respond as he has. I think this is a question of how we preserve the public’s trust in our legal system. As we all know, unfortunately, we generally trust institutions much less nowadays, especially government and politics. That said, the British legal system enjoys a relatively high rating with the public, at 62%, versus the OECD average of 54%. This is something we must work hard to preserve and should feel very proud of.
There is, rightly, some concern that ethnic minorities are overrepresented in the prison system, as the Lammy review, for instance, found recently. However, the majority of the public does not see the sort of sentencing guidelines that are being discussed today—taking into account religious or ethnic background—as the solution. The polling on this is pretty clear: 72% of the public oppose these moves and 52% strongly oppose them. This clarity extends across the whole population. There are some differences between gender, age and so on, but, basically, that majority view—and particularly that strength of feeling—is held across all groups.
Essentially, it seems that the public believe that sentencing guidelines of this type risk being unfair and disregarding the complexity of causes that need to be taken into account. It might be that the public could, and perhaps should, know more about how sentences are set, but it certainly seems to me that simply saying that they are wrong is not the answer.
I therefore agree that introducing such sentencing guidelines is more likely to create resentment, and risks causing more problems than it solves and breaking that vital bond of trust between the public and the legal system that matters so much. I support the Bill very strongly.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I do not regard the decision of the Government to try to resolve a difference of view about the contents of the guidelines in bringing legislation before this House as improper, or as an assault on the constitution or on the judiciary, but I think it is extremely ill-advised. It is ill-advised because of the fast-tracking, because of the impression it gives about pre-sentencing reports and because the Bill is so incoherent. I want to deal with each of those things.
It seems to me that the Government have encouraged a practice, to be deplored among Governments, of finding a political problem, getting out the legislative shotgun and firing the trigger immediately, before any serious thought has been given to how a problem can be dealt with properly and effectively.
The Bill is both unnecessary and undesirable. It is undesirable because it gives the impression that pre-sentence reports are in some way conferring a privilege, whereas they are in fact assisting the judge. If in some cases they lead to someone being given a non-custodial sentence, that may well be because a non-custodial sentence is more likely to reduce re-offending on the part of that person. They are to assist the judge to make important considerations in sentencing practice which need to be made—and increasingly need to be made in a situation where our prisons are desperately overcrowded and their record in reducing reoffending, as the Minister knows all too well, is very weak indeed.
I come to the contents of the Bill. The Bill says that guidelines about pre-sentence reports
“may not include provision framed by reference to different personal characteristics of an offender … in particular … race … religion”
or
“cultural background”.
The phrase “in particular” implies that other personal characteristics, unspecified, could fall within the prohibition. The Government’s Explanatory Notes on the Bill confirm at paragraph 15 that the list in the Bill is “non-exhaustive”. That has been further confirmed by various statements that Ministers have made.
How does the Sentencing Council know if a category or cohort of offenders, other than those named in the Bill, is covered by the prohibition? It is a very bad practice to impose on a body—in this case a single body, the Sentencing Council—a law whose extent it cannot know. There is no known method of deciding what the status in relation to this law is of a characteristic which is not specified in it and which does not fall within some generally described category.
We are all aware of numerous categories to which this applies. There are pregnant women, who are already covered, of course, by R v Thompson in 2024. It is not clear to me whether, if the sentencing guidelines included a phrase drawing attention to recent case law on the subject of pregnant women being given custodial sentences, the Sentencing Council would be acting illegally. What is to happen in those circumstances?
One can think of a number of other circumstances where there is already provision in statute and which the Government appear to be saying are unaffected by the Bill, but it is not clear whether the Sentencing Council can lawfully draw attention to those features, which fall within personal characteristics. The example that I took is not named in the Bill, but it applies to the named and the unnamed characteristics. There are many of them—victims of modern slavery; victims of domestic violence; offenders brought up in local authority care; victims of sexual abuse in childhood; residents of a notorious gang-ridden housing estate characterised by intimidation; children. Nearly all those categories do not fall within those specified in the Bill but obviously ought to be in a pre-sentence report. What happens if the Sentencing Council draws attention to any of those in any future version of the guidelines which emerges from this process? The Bill is a mess.
We have a crisis of re-offending, a crisis in our prisons and a sentencing review led by David Gauke. Those are the sorts of things that we need to be talking about. There is no crisis in the Sentencing Council; there is a disagreement about the form of words to be used to give guidance to courts on sentencing. However, that does not justify fast-tracking of Bills, which attenuates proper debate and discussion and could lead to the situation described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, of the Government being reluctant to accept an amendment because the fast-tracking would be upset by the Bill going back to the Commons. That is nonsense, because it would be done in a day. The noble and learned Lord’s guidance was very wise. I hope that we are not deterred from amending the Bill by the need for it to go back to the other House. That would make a nonsense of what we are here to do and the responsibilities that we have. In the Constitution Committee report, which is now technically published but not yet widely seen, it makes clear its objections to that fast-tracking process.
We have all these crises and problems in relation to our prison system and sentencing policy, yet here we have a Bill which does nothing to address any of them and is an ill-advised move in circumstances which could be resolved in a much better way.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it was a pleasure to hear the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Nichols of Selby. I particularly liked her comment that politics is about service. I think that almost everybody in this House understands that extremely well and tries to commit to it. It is also a pleasure to be in a debate where the lawyers mostly agree. That is quite unusual. Quite often, one is debating this or that, but today it has been rather harmonious.
The Sentencing Council is an independent body that saw a problem and tried to do something about it. It has done what it was designed to do. Now, the Labour Government are running scared of these rather nasty right-wingers who are trying to interfere. I think it was Elon Musk, perhaps among others, who first said that Britain had a two-tier justice system. He was right. That is exactly what we have. Some groups are treated worse than others. We do not have equality under the law. We have known about women being less fairly treated for decades, with their being imprisoned for things that men would not be. The Sentencing Council came up with the mildest of changes to address that issue and has been slammed for it. The updated sentencing guidelines do not do anything dramatic. They just ensure that the courts have the most comprehensive information about offenders and offences. The revised guidelines put emphasis on pre-sentence reports in sentencing decisions and offer more clarity on the scope of requirements for community orders and suspended sentences.
The Government say that they want equality under the law, but everybody wants that; we all understand that it is absolutely desirable. However, the difference is that I accept the evidence that we currently have a two-tier system of justice where you can end up receiving worse treatment because you are a woman or because of the colour of your skin.
If the Government are going to reject the guidance from the Sentencing Council, what ideas are they putting forward? I am speaking only briefly because a lot has been said already that I agree with—and some with which I do not, obviously. I am puzzled by the fact that the Government do not have qualms—or perhaps they do; the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, might want to tell us—about the fact that the Greens, the Lib Dems, the Cross-Benchers and the Church are speaking against the Bill. They have the Conservatives and Policy Exchange supporting them—what is that about? Since when did the Labour Government want to be supported by this lot? I really do not understand where they are coming from.
Please can we remember that we are in a society now that is deeply misogynistic—more than, I think, at any time in my life? As a 1970s feminist, I thought that we had won that battle. I really thought that this was the future for women and that we would be equal in society. We clearly are not. The Government ought to address things such as that. I look forward to seeing some of the amendments from more learned people. I would almost certainly support them.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I, too, add my heartfelt congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Nichols, on her wonderful maiden speech. I know her from back in North Yorkshire. She was always a wonderful woman—a wonderful lady. If you went to some of her meetings, she was very like a mother hen gathering her chicks around her. She was always looking out for somebody who was on the margin and excluded, and she tried to draw them in. What noble Lords have heard is what I experienced when she was a politician. She is still loved in Selby, and people still remember her. I remember the grand opening of the organ in that wonderful place. She was there helping with tea and coffee, serving and being involved. She did it from the heart. It was never a show. With her smile and her welcome, you always knew you had come home. I look forward to hearing what she is going to say. Her maiden speech was one of those things that reminded me of North Yorkshire.
Some of your Lordships may be surprised, but I welcome this Bill for the reasons clearly set out in the Explanatory Notes and the House of Lords Library briefing by Claire Brader. They give the reasons why this is happening: in the meeting with the Sentencing Council, it did not want to change things within its guidance, so the Government thought it was right to change it by legislation—and that is the only way you could change it; there is no other way, because the body is independent.
I agree with His Majesty’s Government that the Bill will ensure equality—I would rather use that word than “fairness”—for all in our courts. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said exactly the same. If we go for “equality” and not “fairness”, then everybody will be clearly included within it.
This law will prevent the Sentencing Council publishing guidelines that stipulate the use of a pre-sentence report —PSR—based on the offender’s personal characteristics. The Government have created this, and I think they should have been much wiser to pick out those characteristics that are prohibited to be used as a basis for exclusion from the Human Rights Act. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said the same thing: race, religion and belief are protected characteristics. Why not put in those protected characteristics or simply refer to Article 9 as set out in the Human Rights Act? That would be much clearer. Of course, they have done a bit about race, belief, and a thing I do not understand: “cultural background”? What does it mean? Does it mean that both of us grew up on the same estate and that, if you did not, you have no background? That is the bit in the Bill that I think is not worth retaining —the Government have to find something better.
I turn to that four-letter word, race. I was chair of the General Synod’s Committee for Minority Ethnic Anglican Concerns, which came out of the Faith in the City report. We carried out a survey of the ways of combating racism in the dioceses of the Church of England in 1991, and we called it Seeds of Hope. We said this about the nature of humanity: men and women, boys and girls, of every hue and ethnic group belong to the one race, the human race, all made in the image of God, and all are of unique worth in his sight.
The word “race” has had a troubled history. Racism is born out of ignorance. Sadly, ignorance is not in short supply, and that is why we get racism. Apartheid in South Africa, for example, believed that colour defined the race of a person. Laws were passed, from marriage to where you lived and where you were buried, because you belonged to a very different race from those who were governing at the time. Next door in Zimbabwe, the seizure of white farms led to the turning of a food basket for the whole region into a basket case. White farmers and their workers belong to the one human race and deserved to be treated thus. Humanity belongs to the one human race—even, I want to say, in Zimbabwe.
Margaret and I have three grandchildren. Two are from a white father and a black mother, while the third is from a white mother and a black father. All three, by the way, are not from mixed parentage or different races; they are blessed to be what we call “double ethnic”—that is, with a white parent and a black parent. It is not that they are “coloured” or this, that or the other stuff. I wish His Majesty’s Government had used a better word, which for me is “ethnicity”, not “race”. The word “race” has an unfortunate history. When most people talk about race they are talking about me, because I happen to be black and Ugandan; when you are talking about a white person, the word “race” does not appear. We all belong to an ethnic group, but equally we belong to the one human race.
I hope we will find a way of talking about this so that we bury the word “racism”, because it often does not describe what you want to describe. During the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, we talked to people in Birmingham who held the view that every white policeman in the Met was a racist simply because they happened to be white and they happened to be in the police. That was a difficult gathering. Then you get some black people to whom you may suggest that their views are racist but they deny that: “Me, a black person? Of course I can’t be racist”. But look at Mugabe in Zimbabwe.
I ask the Government to listen to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and table an amendment that is easier to understand and describes the very thing they want to do. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, thinks that is unnecessary. If tonight, by a miracle, the Sentencing Council could take out the words that have made the Government create this Bill, then of course there would be no need for it because they would not be in the guidance. But, while that is still the case, I support the Government in making sure that those sections in the guidance are prevented by law. However, I ask the Government to make the law clearer in what it is doing and to drop the question of cultural background. I do not know what it means, and I am not sure whether they know what it means, but it is in the Bill.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, what a lovely maiden speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Nichols of Selby. She did Selby and her family proud—and, what is better, she talked a lot of grounded sense on this issue, so I welcome her.
I also welcome this Bill. What we are discussing here—that pre-sentence reports will now not offer differential treatment based on race, religion or cultural background—is important, but, as we have heard, it was a close thing. As the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, outlined, it is important that we note that it is a serious democratic concern that an unelected quango set up by elected politicians sought to act against the wishes of those same elected politicians, and it has taken urgent, fast-tracked primary legislation to stop it. I know from the Minister’s letter that this broader debate is off limits today, but I emphasise that this tension cannot be sidestepped and needs to be taken head on.
The noble Lord, Lord Beith, and others say that this Bill is unnecessary. Is the problem for us not that it became necessary because the independent Sentencing Council flouted democracy? That should matter. The Minister’s letter, which I referred to earlier, reassures us that this Bill will not affect pre-sentence reports in general. That is fine, although it has to be said that some attention needs to be given to PSRs. His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation’s latest annual report said that 70% of PSRs inspected between February 2024 and February 2025 were deemed insufficient.
I also think that more clarity needs to be offered to the public about the role of pre-sentence reports in general, now that we are talking about them in relation to this Bill. While there may well be broad acceptance that, in making sentencing decisions, the specific individual circumstances of any defendant can be looked at and taken into account, I think reassurance may be needed for the public that the main focus of sentencing decisions should be appropriate punishment for particular criminal actions and individual perpetrators’ culpability.
More broadly, and going back to the specifics of this Bill, I commend the clarity of the Lord Chancellor, Shabana Mahmood, about why the original Sentencing Council’s revised guidelines offended the principle of fair treatment before the law and how they seriously risked eroding confidence in the justice system in general. There is indeed an ever-deepening trust deficit, and I am not entirely sure that this narrow Bill is sufficient to fix it. The reason is that differentiated treatment in criminal justice goes far beyond this sentencing issue. Ms Mahmood seemed to acknowledge that when she stated:
“As someone who is from an ethnic minority background myself, I do not stand for any differential treatment before the law, for anyone of any kind”.
To borrow a phrase from the Prime Minister, she gets it.
Interestingly, Ms Mahmood also used a key phrase in opposing this differentiated approach when she confronted a “two-tier sentencing approach”. That is a choice turn of phrase. Previously, the popular critique of criminal justice as two-tier really resonated, particularly in relation to the sentencing post last summer’s riots, which was sneeringly dismissed as a far-right conspiratorial myth by many Ministers and politicians. It was written off as some culture war trope, and we have heard similar slurs here today. Even as recently as April, the Home Affairs Committee’s inquiry into last year’s “civil disorder” described claims of two-tier policing as “unsubstantiated” and “disgraceful”. Does the Minister acknowledge why there is a widespread perception, reflected in polling and grounded in real-life experience and evidence, that often, even before sentencing occurs, some crimes can be handled differently depending on the race, religion or community membership of the perpetrator?
I have just written the foreword for a forthcoming report entitled The Many Tiers of British Justice: When Identity Politics Trumps Impartial Policing, by Hardeep Singh. I will send a copy to the Minister when it is published next month: it is a crucial read. It uses as an example, and explores in detail, the loss of confidence in the impartiality of police operational decisions, which seem increasingly to be influenced by the particular community being policed, or by broader political concerns, rather than by criminal justice ones.
The plight of the suspended and now sacked chair of the Met Police Federation, Rick Prior, indicates this tension. Mr Prior was removed from his job after a TV interview in which he discussed how his members’ fears of vexatious investigations meant that police officers hesitated before engaging with minority-ethnic Londoners. Referring to some Independent Office for Police Conduct investigations, Mr Prior reported that some police officers had stopped applying the law fairly to people of all backgrounds.
Some noble Lords have expressed concerns about speeches made today that have raised broad political concerns, suggesting that we should have stuck to the narrow tramlines of the Bill—a bit like “Get back in your lane”. But this is Second Reading, so we are allowed to stretch broadly. I will also raise my concerns, which rather mirror those, that criminal justice is being used in a proactive, political way, and that those involved should potentially stick to their lane. Indeed, one thing that the whole Sentencing Council controversy has revealed is the tendency to try to use criminal justice to compensate for perceived racial unfairness and alleged social injustices. The Sentencing Council in its original statement admitted this by saying the quiet bit out loud:
“The reasons for including groups for PSRs vary but include evidence of disparities in sentencing outcomes”.
That translates as, “The aim was to go easier on certain groups to address alleged inequalities”.
The Lord Chancellor, in the Minister’s letter, acknowledged the Sentencing Council’s good intentions in addressing disparities of sentencing outcomes, but I am not sure that we should flatter those intentions. Even if the Minister rightly emphasises that these discussions should be had by policymakers, with decisions accountable to the public, I have a nagging concern, and perhaps the Minister can reassure me as I finish off.
The Government seem to be accepting at face value the Supreme Court’s thesis that racial disparities or inequalities of outcome must mean inequality of treatment and racist discrimination. I fear that such conclusions are exactly what leads to inappropriate, proactive anti-racist correctives and cloud the ability to look dispassionately and objectively at the issue. At the very least, alternative explanations need to be considered. For example, ethnic minorities tend to plead not guilty at a higher rate, leading to less leniency at sentencing. One hypothesis to explain this is that there is more distrust of advice given by state-provided lawyers—distrust that might legitimately have its roots in the legacy of historic racism.
If criminal justice bodies and politicians push a narrative that the state is institutionally racist, will that not simply deepen and embed such distrust? What we need are not narrow Bills but broader discussions. However, in this instance I hope that the narrow Bill will clear the way for those broader discussions, which should be about the use of the law and the judiciary for political purposes—something I think is worrying.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)
My Lords, this rather sombre debate has been enhanced by the delightful and endearing maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Nichols of Selby. I am so glad I was here to hear it.
I endorse the comments made in respect of the death of my learned friend and erstwhile colleague, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. His loss is a personal blow and a blow to this House.
I believe it particularly desirable that judges should have the assistance of a pre-sentence report when sentencing ethnic-minority offenders. The Lammy review identified that ethnic-minority and particularly black offenders were sentenced to prison more often and for longer than white offenders. The review considered pre-sentence reports and concluded that the role that they played was
“vital considering the … difference in backgrounds – both in social class and ethnicity – between the magistrates, judges and many of those offenders who come before them”.
The problem is that, ideally, provision of pre-sentence reports should be the norm in the case of almost all serious offenders. Singling out the ethnic-minority cohort in the guidelines is capable of appearing to some to be unfair discrimination. But currently, a struggling Probation Service appears to lack the resources to produce adequate pre-sentence reports, even in the diminishing number of cases where they are requested.
I do not believe that the guidelines introduce two-tier justice, nor do I believe that their introduction would severely damage confidence in our criminal justice system. I do not believe that we need this Bill, but we are where we are. Let us reluctantly accept the Bill, imposing drafting improvements if we may—and there is scope for those—and move on to addressing the much greater problems that currently beset the sentencing regime.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I echo the eloquent tributes to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, from the noble and learned Lords, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers. He will be greatly missed not only by those in this House who have had the privilege of hearing him over recent years, but by the wider legal public and the public in general.
It is with great pleasure that I join others in praising the excellent maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Nichols, particularly, if I may say so, the very personal account she included in it. It was also a great pleasure to hear from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, the Yorkshire perspective on the noble Baroness’s contribution to public life.
Nothing I have heard today has persuaded me that this Bill is either necessary or sensible. We on these Benches regard it as an overreaction to a difference, little more than a misunderstanding at the outset, between the Lord Chancellor and the Sentencing Council. What is more, it is a misunderstanding that could and should have been sorted out informally, by discussion and compromise, without resort to emergency legislation, as the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said.
We believe that this Bill proceeds from a false premise—a fallacy, indeed—that that the Sentencing Council has produced guidelines that depart from the principle that everyone is equal before the law. We in this House all believe in equality before the law. The argument advanced for the Bill is that if PSRs are obtained more readily for particular cohorts of offenders, those offenders are less likely to go to prison, which, so the argument goes, amounts to two-tier justice. But as my noble friend Lord Beith pointed out, this Bill is about the provision of pre-sentence reports, not sentencing offenders differentially. PSRs are written to assist judges in making the right sentencing decisions.
I suggest that the two-tier justice argument misrepresents what equality before the law means. What it means is the courts treating everyone alike, with neither fear nor favour. That is the significance of the saying that justice is blind and of the iconic statue that tops the Old Bailey. It is about applying the law even-handedly.
It does not mean ignoring the evidence—still less skewing the evidence by depriving the court of the ability to do justice on the basis of all the available evidence and information, and so weakening the ability of the court to dispense justice. The underlying reality, which this Bill ignores, is the glaring inequality of outcomes in our criminal justice system, whereby offenders from ethnic minorities have historically been far more harshly treated by sentencing courts. They are far more likely to go to prison than their white counterparts, and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, pointed out, for longer.
For the evidence of that, one has only to read the well-researched and well-argued 2017 final report of the Lammy Review, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Mattinson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, was among many who reinforced this important point. The Bill does nothing to address that reality—far from it. It ignores three very real truths.
The first is that PSRs are the only reliable way that judges can obtain a full and true account of the individual circumstances of the offenders they are called upon to sentence. These reports are a vital source for judges of independently collated information about those individual circumstances, which they need to take into account when deciding between imprisonment or a community sentence. They cannot get such information from speeches in mitigation, however well-constructed and presented by defence counsel, because they are made on defendants’ instructions and cannot be verified.
The second truth is that, as the Minister reminded us, while PSRs ought to be before judges in every case before sentencing—certainly in every case where a prison sentence is possible but not inevitable—their availability in practice has substantially declined in recent years. The reason for that is uncontroversial. Resources for the Probation Service have been progressively reduced and mismanaged by government over the years. The Minister reminded us that the number of PSRs has reduced by 44% over 10 years.
The third truth is that the quality of the reports that have been produced has declined as the time allowed to probation officers to produce individual reports has been reduced, allegedly to save money. My noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, spoke in some detail of the present weaknesses of many reports. We thoroughly welcome the Government’s commitment to increasing resources for the Probation Service generally and for the provision of more detailed and thorough PSRs in individual cases in particular.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Nichols, that we should be making thorough pre-sentence reports available for all offenders where the options are custody or a community sentence, to enable the court to have the fullest material about individual circumstances of offenders when sentencing. Where I part company with the Government and the noble Baroness, Lady Nichols, is that it neither logical nor defensible to say, “Well if we can’t afford reports for all those at risk of prison, we will forbid the judges to prioritise the most vulnerable groups in the interests of an artificial equality”. Yet that is what this Bill proposes. I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester that it is plain wrong to forbid prioritising pre-sentence reports in the face of a lack of resources.
That is not to uphold equality before the law in the face of a misguided guideline. It is to prevent the Sentencing Council performing its function in the most helpful way possible by addressing the inequality of outcomes that bedevils the system as it operates at present. It is all very well for the Minister to say that the causes of unequal outcomes are presently unknown, but there is a mass of evidence to the contrary.
Even the proposition that doing without PSRs saves money is deeply flawed. If, following the logic of the two-tier justice argument, more PSRs lead to fewer custodial sentences, then PSRs do not increase public costs; they save the public money. No one denies that prison is far more expensive than community sentences. That is true on all the evidence, even leaving out of account the knock-on effects of imprisonment on prisoners’ families, housing, employment and dependence on the state, and the effects of all that on the public finances.
Then there is the clear evidence that community sentences are far more effective than prison at reducing reoffending. Reoffending costs the public purse on the average estimate about £18 billion a year. If PSRs are more widely available, then that may contribute to a reduction in reoffending and so a saving of resources.
The Bill raises two constitutional issues. The Constitution Committee has considered this Bill and has prepared a report, which has technically been published today, but of course no one has had time to read or consider the report. That rush is relevant to the first constitutional issue, which is an issue on which the committee criticised this Bill—the use of fast-track emergency legislation once any emergency has passed.
As we know, the Sentencing Council paused implementation of the guidelines, specifically to give this Parliament time to take a view. This Bill has no place being treated as emergency legislation. It has been rushed at every stage. The rules about time lapse between stages are designed to allow time for reflection and consultation between stages, not just in Parliament but outside. This Bill has suffered from a lack of both.
The second constitutional issue is this: while I accept that Parliament has the power and right to legislate to alter the powers or functions of the Sentencing Council, the council is itself a creature of statute and that power ought to be exercised with great caution. The Sentencing Council was established by the Coroners and Justice Act as an independent body to give advice to judges. Its purpose is to assist the judges in the conduct of their sentencing decisions and to help them to achieve the appropriate level of consistency in sentencing approaches and outcomes. That is a judicial function. It is not sensible for the Executive to interfere. Parliament sets out maximum sentences and a set of rules. But it is dangerous for the Executive to interfere, through introducing an Act of Parliament, with the way the sentencing guidelines are then produced, and to set out what they should or should not contain. That runs some risk of an unwarranted and unhelpful interference by the Executive in the working of the judiciary.
In the House of Commons, Robert Jenrick, the Conservative justice spokesperson, proposed an amendment proposing what was in effect a veto over sentencing guidelines produced by the Sentencing Council. In this House, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, proposed much the same thing. That is inappropriate.
In addition, the Bill is incoherent in its drafting—what the Constitution Committee politely calls “legislative uncertainty”. I do not wish to go into detail because the points made throughout the House by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd and Lord Hope, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, and the noble Lords, Lord Bach and Lord Verdirame, on personal characteristics are surely right. Are not pregnancy, being transgender and sexual orientation all personal characteristics? They are also circumstances that a sentencing court might want to take into account, as well as ethnicity, particularly where those characteristics give rise to persecution, abuse and psychological and mental health issues. Those are just the kind of factors that might be considered and explained in PSRs. Why should sentencing guidelines not indicate that some of these characteristics are important and make a PSR more valuable to judges?
For my part, I find any distinction between personal characteristics and personal circumstances ill-defined and unhelpful, and I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and my noble friend Lord Beith that the wording of the prohibition is profoundly unhelpful. I shall not take up the invitation of my noble friend Lady Hamwee to foreshadow at Second Reading amendments that might later be considered. We have heard a number of suggestions for Committee. I would also consider the insertion of the words “without good cause” into the prohibition, to allow for some assessment of what may or may not be sensible. But that is for the next stage of these proceedings, so I shall leave it there.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I hope the House will permit me to begin with a word about the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. He was, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, remarked, a very great man. Outside this House, he was a brilliant Chancery lawyer and a wise judge. In this House, he was a wonderful person to have on your side and, I remember as a Minister, an intimidating, if always courteous, opponent to have on the other side of a debate. I will miss him. May his memory be a blessing.
The Bill has been introduced to remedy a problem, and it does more or less remedy that problem. But it could, and we say should, do more, because the immediate problem that led to the Bill has shone a light on a deeper issue of constitutional significance in the criminal justice system. On that point, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, although we differ on the substance of the Bill and what has led to it.
Not surprisingly, given the number of former senior judges from whom we have heard this afternoon, we have heard many excellent speeches. More surprisingly, given the number of lawyers who have spoken, we have kept more or less to time. But I immediately single out a non-lawyer: the moving maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Nichols of Selby, was a real privilege to listen to. I knew that you could get almost anything at Woolworths, but I did not appreciate that you could get future Baronesses as well. I look forward to hearing more from the noble Baroness during our work in this House in the coming months and years.
As we know, the Sentencing Council, an unelected body with eight members appointed by the Lord—now Lady—Chief Justice and six members appointed by the Lord Chancellor, proposed sentencing guidance that could have led to a divisive criminal justice system, one that risked dividing people by race, religion and identity. That point, it appears, is not now in dispute, at least between the two Front Benchers, given that first the shadow Lord Chancellor and then the Lord Chancellor herself publicly opposed the proposed guidelines.
Originally due to come into effect from 1 April this year, the proposed guidelines said that it will “normally be considered necessary” for judges and magistrates to request a pre-sentence report for certain cohorts of individuals. Those cohorts included the defendant belonging to
“an ethnic minority, cultural minority, and/or faith minority community”.
I should say at the outset that I too am not entirely sure what is meant in these terms by a “cultural minority”, if it is not already an ethnic minority or a faith minority. Are we talking about Morris dancers or devotees of Wagner’s “Ring” cycle? As the Bill uses the same term, this is not really a joke. If the Government want to put this phrase into legislation, they have to tell us what it means. I look forward to the Minister, to whom I have given notice of this and other points, giving a few examples, I hope, of a relevant cultural minority in this context.
What was the effect of these guidelines? It was quite simply that, if you were in one of these groups, a pre-sentence report would “normally be considered necessary”. What is the effect of that? It means that your chances of receiving a non-custodial sentence have increased. Pre-sentence reports, typically written by a probation officer, are key to judges and magistrates deciding whether to sentence an offender to prison or to a non-custodial community order, particularly in borderline cases. As a result, deciding which defendants are included in the cohorts where a pre-sentence report will “normally” be required, and which are not, can be key in deciding who goes to prison and who does not.
As a matter of statute, courts have to follow these guidelines from the Sentencing Council; they are not optional. Prior to 2009, courts in England and Wales were directed that, in sentencing, they must
“have regard to any guidelines which are relevant to the offender’s case”.
That was from Section 172(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. During the passage of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, the provisions concerning sentences attracted considerable debate, and the previous requirement for courts merely to “have regard” to any guidelines was replaced in Section 125 with courts being required to
“follow any sentencing guidelines which are relevant … unless … contrary to the interests of justice”.
That was replicated in Section 59 of the Sentencing Act 2020.
I should therefore now deal with some of the points made on behalf of, and by, the Sentencing Council. For the avoidance of any doubt, although this ought not to be necessary to say, I firmly believe in the independence of the judiciary. Indeed, I believe that we have the finest judiciary in the world. But that does not mean that one cannot respectfully respond to points that have been made publicly on behalf of the Sentencing Council to the Lord Chancellor. So, when the chair of the council, Lord Justice Davis, wrote to the Lord Chancellor on 10 March this year, he made the point that it is still possible for a judge or magistrate to order a pre-sentence report if they are sentencing an individual not captured within one of these demographic groups. That is, of course, absolutely true. But, with respect to Lord Justice Davis, it rather misses the point. It is the almost automatic nature of the pre-sentence reports for certain groups, and their discretionary nature for other groups, that is the issue at heart.
Similarly, in his later letter dated 27 March, the learned Lord Justice said:
“The crucial point is that a pre-sentence report will provide information to the judge or magistrate. It will not determine the sentence”—
a point made a few moments ago by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames. Again, that is true, but, again with respect to the learned Lord Justice, although a pre-sentence report does not mean that you will get a non-custodial sentence, it is certainly harder to get a non-custodial sentence without one.
To put it bluntly, if the Minister and I were each charged with the same offence, in the same court and with the same previous criminal record, these guidelines would have meant that I would almost certainly get a pre-sentence report, and he might or might not. That would mean that my chances of a non-custodial sentence were better than his, simply because I am a member of a minority faith community. That, I suggest, is entirely unjustifiable.
It is no answer to that point, I suggest, to say that there are disparities in sentencing in our criminal justice system for certain groups. There are those disparities, and we need to understand why they exist and work to eradicate them. But these guidelines are not and never were the answer to that problem, for three reasons. Like my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, I add that I am also indebted to Policy Exchange’s paper by David Spencer, and especially to the person who contributed research support for it.
First, the guidelines did not target only those groups where we see disparities. Black defendants, for example, do appear to receive longer sentences for the same offence than do white defendants. But, to take an example of a minority faith community, do Jewish defendants receive longer sentences? I have seen no evidence of that, and it does not appear that the Sentencing Council did either. These guidelines were therefore not properly targeted at what it said was the problem.
Secondly, as the Minister reminded us, the reason why black defendants receive longer sentences—to use the words of Lord Justice Davis’s own letter—“remains unclear”. What is clear is that the reasons are complex, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mattinson, reminded us, and do not—or certainly do not necessarily—involve bias on the part of sentencers.
I am sure that many noble Lords are, like me, devotees of the legal podcast “Double Jeopardy”, hosted by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, who alas is not in his place. As I see that the noble and learned Lord Falconer of Thoroton, is also not in his place, I feel sufficiently charitable to say that his legal podcast, “Law and Disorder”, is also very good—and sufficiently brave to add that it is almost as good as that of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald.
In his podcast recently—the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, touched on this—the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, pointed out that black defendants plead not guilty in a higher proportion than do white defendants, and of course sentences are higher if you are found guilty after a not guilty plea, because you lose the guilty plea discount. He pointed out that black defendants also elect for Crown Court trial proportionately more than do white defendants, and sentences are higher after conviction in the Crown Court than in the magistrates’ court. I am not suggesting those two points explain the entirety of the disparity; in fact, I am sure that they do not. There are likely to be a number of reasons for this disparity, which, I repeat, we should work to eradicate. On that point, I agree—and this is a sentence that I rarely utter—with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. But to get back in my normal furrow, where I disagree with her is this: you do not work to eradicate disparities by introducing additional and different discrimination into the system to somehow correct for those disparities, because there is one fundamental principle at the heart of our justice system, and it is this: equality before the law.
I am fond of the Minister, as he knows, so I do not propose to give him too hard a time in having to defend his boss, the Lord Chancellor. But the plain fact of the matter is that, despite having a representative on the council when the guidelines were discussed, the Lord Chancellor acted only once alerted to the problem by the shadow Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor has said that she was not personally aware of the guidelines until Mr Jenrick’s statements brought them to her attention, and of course I entirely accept that. However, given the seniority of some of the officials attending those meetings, the guidelines should have had warning bells ringing and lights flashing in Petty France. That they did not realise that these guidelines would not be acceptable to Ministers would indicate that there might be something of a problem of groupthink. To be fair to the Lord Chancellor, once she had been alerted to it, she got to grips with the issue, including, as I am sure that noble Lords have seen, by way of a polite but sometimes feisty correspondence with Lord Justice Davis, and this Bill is the result.
However, the real issue is the relationship between the Sentencing Council and the Government and between the Sentencing Council and this Parliament. I want to take a few minutes on this topic, because it is fundamentally important and often misunderstood. While I listened carefully to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, as I always do, this is Second Reading and not Committee, so I want to take a moment to touch on this issue.
To say, as many do, that sentencing is a matter for judges and judges alone is too simplistic and, if meant literally, also wrong. Individual sentencing—that is, the sentence handed out in a particular case—is rightly a matter for, and only for, trial judges and magistrates. The Government must not be involved in that. But the setting of overarching sentencing policy is very clearly a matter for the Government and Parliament.
Here I must again disagree, and again with respect, with Lord Justice Davis, the chair of the Sentencing Council. In his 10 March letter to the Lord Chancellor, he said:
“There is general acceptance of the guidelines by the judiciary because they emanate from an independent body on which judicial members are in the majority. The Council preserves the critical constitutional position of the independent judiciary in relation to sentencing.
In criminal proceedings where the offender is the subject of prosecution by the state, the state should not determine the sentence imposed on an individual offender. If sentencing guidelines of whatever kind were to be dictated in any way by Ministers of the Crown, this principle would be breached”.
I respectfully disagree with Lord Justice Davis, for three reasons.
First, as I have said, we need to distinguish between the sentence imposed on an individual offender and the wholesale policy environment in which sentencing frameworks are set. The former is for the judiciary, and the judiciary alone; the latter is not. Parliament, and therefore Ministers and government, must have a critical role in setting overarching sentencing policy and frameworks. This Bill, for example, is entirely proper constitutionally. Indeed, for many decades we did not have a Sentencing Council at all; it is a creature of fairly recent statute.
Parliament obviously has an important role in setting sentencing policy. The upper limits for the sentencing of offenders are set by Parliament through statute—for example, in the Theft Act 1968. In addition to setting maximum limits, Parliament has sometimes set minimum limits for offences, although courts can often depart from that if exceptional circumstances exist. It is important that Parliament holds the pen because, ultimately, Parliament is accountable to the electorate. The public bear the impact of crime, and it is Government Ministers who are responsible for allocating public funds to the criminal justice system of courts, prisons, probation officers, police and lawyers. Those Ministers are ultimately accountable to Parliament and the electorate.
It was striking that Lord Justice Davis took the view in his letter—a point made in some of today’s contributions—that the inclusion of these specific cohorts in the proposed guidelines was not a
“policy decision of any significance”.
The fact that both the shadow Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chancellor immediately took a different view from that of the Sentencing Council, and that we now have this Bill before us, might indicate that it was in fact a policy decision of real significance and that government and Parliament are entitled to have a role in such policy decisions. I respectfully agree with much of the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead.
Secondly, Lord Justice Davis’s letter implied that the judiciary accepts and follows sentencing guidelines only because
“they emanate from an independent body on which judicial members are in the majority”.
With respect, that cannot be right. Judges follow the guidelines because they are part of a legally mandated framework, set out in statute, ultimately derived from Parliament. So long as any body is properly constituted under an Act of Parliament, of course our judiciary would follow it.
Thirdly, on a point made earlier, the distinction which Lord Justice Davis draws between courts and what he calls “the state” is, I suggest, somewhat elusive. Courts are part of the state, as the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary’s own website makes clear. I assume that, when Lord Justice Davis referred to “the state”, he actually meant the Executive or the Government. I agree with him, respectfully, that the Government should not be involved in sentencing individual offenders, but the Executive, and this Parliament, should be involved in the sentencing framework and in sentencing policy.
To that end, I invite the Minister to let us know whether as part of their thinking about the Sentencing Council the Government are again considering a proposal, not taken up by the majority of the working group which led to the establishment of the Sentencing Council, that sentencing guidelines from the Sentencing Council before they are implemented should be subject to approval by Parliament. Would he also tell us whether the Government are considering whether the House of Commons Justice Select Committee, which at the moment is a statutory consultee of proposed guidelines after they have been formulated, might itself have a representative on the council?
These are constitutional matters. I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, as to the answer to them, but we agree that these matters raise fundamental constitutional points. For those reasons, I look forward to working on this short but important Bill as it passes through this House. I am very grateful to the Minister for his engagement to date, and no doubt the House in all its quarters will debate in its usual way and seek to improve this Bill in its future stages.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I start my closing speech by paying tribute to the noble and learned Lord Etherton. Being relatively new to this place, I never got to know him, but it is clear how much he was deeply respected and admired. He has been described as a kind person, which is something that I hope one day would be my epitaph.
I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions over the course of today’s debate. The depth of knowledge and experience in this House has certainly been on full display. It has also been a pleasure to be in this place for the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Nichols of Selby. I warmly welcome her to this place and look forward to working with her in the years to come, as she clearly has a lot to contribute.
I thank noble Lords who have raised perceptive questions over the course of today’s debate and those who have spoken to me privately. I hope they will feel that I have addressed their points in my closing remarks. If I do not cover them now, I will follow up in writing to address their points. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said, words matter. I hope that my closing words matter and are helpful in answering noble Lords’ questions.
As I set out in my opening speech, the Sentencing Council’s revised imposition guideline risked differential treatment before the law. As we have discussed, this Bill is not about the wider role and powers of the Sentencing Council. It is not about restricting the use of pre-sentence reports. In fact, this Government are committed to increasing the use of pre-sentence reports. Rather, it is about the very specific issue of the Sentencing Council issuing guidelines on pre-sentence reports with reference to an offender’s personal characteristics, rather than all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, have asked why this Bill is necessary and whether it was possible to resolve the matter with the Sentencing Council without primary legislation. In response, I would explain that we first exhausted all other options prior to introducing this legislation. The imposition guideline was due to come into effect on 1 April this year. Ahead of this, the Lord Chancellor used her existing power to ask the Sentencing Council to reconsider. Unfortunately, the Sentencing Council declined to revise the draft guideline. It was right, at that point, to act quickly to introduce the legislation.
As a result, the Sentencing Council decided to put the guideline on pause while Parliament rightly has its say, and we are grateful to it for doing so. By acting quickly, we prevented a guideline coming into effect which risked differential treatment before the law. This legislation has been necessary to achieve that and to clarify this Government’s commitment to equality before the law.
Noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Beith, have questioned the scheduling of this Bill. I reassure noble Lords that the dates for Committee and Report have been agreed in the usual channels in the usual way.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and my noble friend Lady Mattinson have spoken about the importance of trust and consistency in the justice system. As the speed with which we introduced the Bill demonstrates, this Government are definitive in their stance with regard to equality before the law. The issues that have been raised with regard to disproportionality in our justice system are the domain of government, politics and Parliament. This Bill serves to reassert our ability to determine this country’s policy on the issue of equality of treatment before the law.
As my noble friend Lady Mattinson set out, we must work to preserve trust in our excellent legal system. I thank her for sharing her considered views on this. It is essential to victims that they are able to trust our legal system and know that everyone will be treated equally before the law. Implementing a sentencing guideline that could lead to differential treatment before the law puts trust in the legal system at risk, which is why we acted quickly to address this.
To address the question from the noble Lords, Lord Jackson and Lord Wolfson, about what this Bill means for the future of the Sentencing Council, I reiterate that the Sentencing Council has done valuable work, bringing consistency to judicial decision-making. However, developments on the imposition guideline have clearly revealed a potential issue, where the council is dictating policy that is not this Government’s and that does not express the will of Parliament. The Lord Chancellor is therefore reviewing the powers and function of the Sentencing Council. It would not be appropriate to deal with that wider issue through fast-track legislation, given the significant policy and constitutional issues involved. It is right to take the time to consider more fundamental reform like this. The Lord Chancellor will be considering all options and I know that many in your Lordships’ House will have valuable experience to contribute.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and other noble Lords asked how this Bill interacts with the review of sentencing being led by David Gauke and ably supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett. I reassure noble Lords that this Bill will not have any impact. This Bill is addressing the specific matter at hand regarding the Sentencing Council guidelines. The sentencing review is a wider review of sentencing, and we look forward to considering its recommendations in due course.
I turn now to the questions over the detail of the Bill, which were raised by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Hope, the noble Lords, Lord Verdirame, Lord Beith, Lord Bach and Lord Wolfson, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu. What is clear from this debate is the Government’s objective to help ensure equality before the law. We are clear that an offender should be judged by a court on an individual basis, according to the particular facts and circumstances of their case. It is not for the Sentencing Council to set out in guidance that judgments should be made on the basis of personal characteristics such as race or ethnicity.
The Government have used the broad term “personal characteristics” to make it clear that any reference to preferential treatment for particular cohorts is unacceptable. The Bill states that personal characteristics include race, religion or belief, and cultural background, but these are examples and not a comprehensive list. “Personal characteristics” is intended to include a wide range of characteristics, such as sex, gender identity, physical disabilities and pregnancy status. This is broader than the concept of “protected characteristics” in the Equality Act, which is a closed list and not wide enough to address, for example, the reference in the guideline to being a member of a cultural minority.
After careful consideration, the Government have therefore concluded that the most appropriate and principled way to respond to the issues raised by the guideline is to use the broader concept of “personal characteristics” in the Bill. The term “demographic cohort” is used in the Bill’s Explanatory Notes. However, the use of “demographic cohort” was not intended to, and I believe does not, narrow the definition of “personal characteristics”. A demographic cohort is a way of describing people who share certain personal characteristics. It is used in the Explanatory Notes to provide additional context to the Bill, but it would not be an appropriate alternative to the current drafting and would, in my view, raise further difficult questions of definition regarding what amounts to a “demographic cohort”. The term “personal characteristics” is used and understood in other contexts, and the Government consider it is the best formulation to address the issues raised by the guideline.
The noble Lord, Lord Bach, raised concern over whether this Bill interferes with judicial independence. To be clear, this Bill does not in any way influence individual sentencing decisions. Individual sentencing decisions clearly remain a matter for the independent judiciary. However, as I have said previously, the issue of tackling disproportionate outcomes within the criminal justice system is a policy matter and should be addressed by Government Ministers. The narrow change introduced by the Bill targets aspects of the sentencing guidelines that relate to equality of inputs. We are therefore addressing a policy matter and are not encroaching on judicial independence.
It is regrettable that some of the recent debate has strayed into comments about individual judges and their decision-making. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, will be reassured that this Government will always support judges to do their jobs independently. I know that the Lord Chancellor takes her duty to defend judicial independence very seriously. As a number of noble and noble and learned Lords have said today, we are very lucky to have a world-class and highly regarded judiciary.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Nichols of Selby, have rightly raised concerns about probation capacity, which is something that I think about in my role on a daily basis. One knock-on effect of this is the consistency and quality of pre-sentence reports. This Government support the wider use and improvement of pre-sentence reports within our courts. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that they can be valuable in all cases and for all defendants, regardless of their membership of a certain cohort, and should be obtained unless a judge believes that they are unnecessary. We are committed to ensuring that pre-sentence reports are available when needed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked what will happen to pre-sentence reports that are being prepared when the Bill comes into effect. I reassure her that there will be no impact on pre-sentence reports in the process of being prepared. This Bill is not about the ability of a court to request a pre-sentence report. The test remains that, under section 30 of the Sentencing Code, a PSR should be requested unless it is considered unnecessary. This is about council guidelines and the need to protect the principle of equal treatment before the law.
We have publicly outlined the steps we are taking to increase capacity in the Probation Service to enable it to undertake more valuable work such as this. Next year, we will bring 1,300 additional new trainee probation officers on board, but as noble Lords are well aware, and I have spoken to a number of noble Lords privately about this, it takes time to train and induct new staff to allow them to become the brilliant probation officers we so highly value. I have a lot to do to help our fantastic probation staff achieve what we know is possible in the service.
To support our probation staff, we are embracing technology, including AI. Work is ongoing that is improving the flow of information—so critical to an accurate assessment of an offender’s risk—and new tools are beginning to strip away a probation officer’s administrative burden. There is much more work still to do. However, given the challenges the Probation Service faces, new staff and better processes are not sufficient on their own. We need to think about how we use the Probation Service, which faces a case load of just over 250,000 offenders, more effectively.
The theme of the debate, highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has been tackling disproportionality across the criminal justice system. We know that more must be done to address inequalities and we are committed to tackling racial disparities, as I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, will be pleased to hear. As the Lord Chancellor set out in the other place, and the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, has questioned, she has commissioned a review into the data held by the Ministry of Justice on disparities, and we will carefully consider next steps. We are also taking action to increase diversity in our staff and working with the judiciary to make sure that our appointments are reflective of the society we serve. This has included supporting underrepresented groups to join the judiciary.
A particular concern was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, about how the Bill may impact on women—in particular, pregnant women. As the chair of the Women’s Justice Board, I have paid particularly close attention to this matter and have also spoken with board members. To be clear, nothing in the Bill prevents judges requesting pre-sentence reports for pregnant women, nor will it affect Court of Appeal case law, which states that a pre-sentence report is desirable in the case of pregnant or postnatal women. Judges will therefore continue to be able to request pre-sentence reports in cases where they ordinarily would, including, for example, appropriate cases involving pregnant women, and we expect this to continue. We are committed to achieving equal outcomes for women.
In conclusion, this is a targeted and specific Bill which serves to protect the important principles of equality before the law. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and I look forward to engaging with them as the Bill progresses.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, before the Minister moves the Second Reading, he told the House, in justifying why the term “personal characteristics” is used here, that it is used in a number of contexts. I do not expect him to answer in detail now, but will he write to the House to explain what those contexts are so that we have them in our minds as well?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I will very happily write. As noble Lords are aware, I am not an expert on the finer details of the law, so that would actually help me as well. I beg to move.
Middle East Update
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the Middle East continues to face a wide range of challenges, as was made clear in the debate in the other place yesterday afternoon. Fighting and instability continue in many parts of the region, and state actors in the Middle East pose an increasing threat to the UK on the domestic stage.
I start with Syria. As noble Lords will be aware, representatives from several groups in Syria convened a national dialogue conference in March this year to discuss a new national constitution. Although there was agreement on a commitment to human rights and transitional justice, several groups from the Kurdish and Druze communities attacked the al-Sharaa Government for what they claim is a lack of representation. Kurdish groups have since claimed that they have secured agreement on a federal system of government, although this has been neither confirmed nor publicly announced by the incumbent Government. Will the Minister please update the House on the Government’s assessment of the involvement of Kurdish groups in the constitution-making process in Syria? Are the Government concerned that a lack of clarity in these discussions threatens the process?
Although I am sure the whole House celebrates the fall of Bashar al-Assad, we cannot lose sight of how important the next steps are in Syria. The way the Syrian state is reconstituted is vital to ensuring that a lasting peace can be maintained. The international community must do all it can to ensure that these debates are settled by negotiation and compromise, not through further violence. Syria is a fundamentally important player in the region, and it is vital for the sake of the wider international community that one destabilising Government is not replaced by yet another one. I therefore ask the Minister what discussions or support the Government are providing to Syrian authorities on how they can take proactive, balanced steps in the reconstruction process. What discussions are the Government having with other global partners, such as the US, on how the process in Syria can be supported?
Noble Lords will have heard in the Home Office Statement made in the other place yesterday that British counterterrorism police arrested several Iranian nationals on suspicion of intent to perform a terrorist act. The details we have make it clear that security services are investigating a state-level threat from Iran. My noble friend Lord Davies of Gower covered this in his earlier remarks, but the matter needs reiterating: Iran poses a very real, very direct threat to the UK domestically, as well as to the wider Middle East. It has recently backed an attack on Ben Gurion Airport, Israel’s main international hub, and continues to support destabilising organisations across the entire Middle East. Iran continues to pose a great threat to the security of Israel and its allies. Iranian authorities this week claim to have created a new missile with a range of 1,200 kilometres and have warned that American military bases across the Middle East fall within its scope.
Given the scale of the threat that Iran poses to us in the UK, to our ally in Israel and to the US, does the Minister recognise that our continued support for Israel’s right to defend itself against such violence is even more essential? Will he update the House on what steps the Government are taking to continue to undermine Iran’s malign influence in the Middle East? Iran continues to destabilise, threaten and attack partners across the region, and its foreign and military policies are some of the most fundamental barriers to any efforts to gain peace in the Middle East. It is vital that the Government address the threat of Iran robustly, for our own security and that of our partners on the world stage.
Finally, I turn to Israel. We must remember that 59 innocent hostages continue to be held in cruel captivity by Hamas, and those who are still alive have no access to aid or communication with their families. These hostages have now been imprisoned for nearly 600 days. We can never forget that it was the kidnapping of these innocent people by Hamas, and the attacks, which contributed to the conflict we see today. I therefore ask the Minister what discussions the Government have had with partners in the US and Europe on how those remaining hostages can be freed and returned to their families. We are clear that Hamas, a terrorist organisation that has acted tirelessly to inflict pain, misery and suffering on communities in Israel and Gaza, cannot continue to remain in power: it has to be eradicated from the region if we are ever to see a lasting peace. Will the Minister please confirm whether the Government have a clear strategy on removing Hamas in Gaza?
In conclusion, the UK should support all efforts to secure peace, security and stability, which means standing up for our allies and our values in proactive engagement with partners across the Middle East. The Government have a duty to continue this work and I hope the Minister will be able to address these many points in his response.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I shall address the Statement that was made in the Commons and that has just been, in effect, repeated in the Lords. It addresses the announcement made by the Israeli Prime Minister that the
“Israeli Security Cabinet has approved a plan to expand and intensify Israel’s military operations in Gaza”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/5/25; col. 578.]
That will be my focus, because it was the focus of the Statement.
The Government have pointed out that Hamas will not be defeated by military means and have expressed “outrage” at actions of the Israeli Government. Israel has violated the deal with Hamas by imposing a siege and refusing to start phase 2 of the deal. That siege has lasted 65 days. UNRWA says that nearly 3,000 aid trucks have been prevented from entering Gaza. The World Food Programme has announced that its food stocks in Gaza have been completely depleted, and the Statement refers to those points. Does the Minister agree that Israel imposing a siege on Gaza and preventing humanitarian aid coming in constitutes collective punishment of a civilian population, which is illegal under international law? Israel’s Finance Minister has now said that Gaza will be “totally destroyed”. Does the Minister condemn that statement?
The Government in their Statement say that 52,000 people have already been killed, and others have estimated that it is higher. Around 90% of the population of Gaza has been displaced at least once; many have been displaced multiple times. Israel says that it plans to take over the distribution of humanitarian aid to Gaza at hubs controlled by its military. The UN has criticised this as a violation of global humanitarian principles, and its agencies will not participate. What action will the Government take here?
One hundred and five hostages, taken in violation of international law and in appalling violence, were released in November 2023 and 33 during the latest deal period. That is why the Israeli hostage families argue that negotiations have had far greater success in securing the release of hostages than military action. It is welcome that the Government say that Hamas will not be defeated by military means. That is surely right.
Following President Trump’s repeated comments, will the Minister confirm that Gaza is for the Palestinians, and that it must be rebuilt and liberated for the Palestinians? What actions are the Government taking to ensure that Israel adheres to international humanitarian law in Gaza and immediately ceases indiscriminate attacks on civilians, protected workers such as aid workers and journalists, and protected infrastructure such as schools and hospitals?
It is essential that we ensure that no UK weapons can be used to perpetrate human rights abuses in Gaza. With the resumption of Israeli strikes on Gaza, does the Minister agree that the UK must now move urgently to suspend all arms sales to Israel?
Israel is continuing its military invasion of West Bank cities. This included tanks in the city of Jenin for the first time in 20 years. According to the UN, it has displaced 40,000 Palestinians who, according to the Israeli Defence Minister, will not be allowed to return for at least a year.
The US, UK and other European Governments have condemned the continued expansion of illegal settlements, but over 250 illegal settlements have been built across the West Bank, now with over 700,000 settlers. Given Israel’s refusal to withdraw its illegal settlements in line with the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, when will the Government take action to stop the continuation of these violations of international law? Can the Minister explain how massive Israeli settlement expansion is in any way aligned with the Government’s stated goal of a two-state solution?
The Minister will know that his colleague in the other place, although condemning what was happening, found that MPs were not satisfied with the level of action the Government were taking. Across the House, that concern was expressed. Therefore, does he not agree that the Government must now join almost 150 other states in recognising a Palestinian state? Surely some hope should be offered that they have rights that must be respected. We need to move forward: the two-state solution, living side by side in security for both states, and prosperity. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their contributions and questions. I start with the points from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, about Iran and Syria. Iran continues to destabilise the region through its political, financial and military support for partners and proxies, including Hezbollah and Hamas. We have been clear that it must cease this support. Long-term peace and security in the Middle East cannot be achieved without addressing Iran’s destabilising activities. President Pezeshkian has spoken about greater engagement with the West. For this to succeed, Iran needs to end that destabilising behaviour.
The collapse of the Assad regime has certainly weakened Iran and its so-called axis of resistance. A Syrian-led and owned political transition process, leading to an inclusive, non-sectarian and representative Government, is vital, and that is what we are aiming to support in terms of Syria. Our diplomatic efforts are to ensure that we judge the new Government by their actions and not simply their words.
Last week, at the UN Security Council, I had the opportunity to meet briefly the new permanent representative from Syria. I made these points very strongly: that we are committed to support a new Syria, focused particularly on economic growth, that can actually deliver for the people of Syria.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, focused on, the main part of the Statement was in relation to the Israel-Gaza situation and the Occupied Territories. I will be absolutely clear, as my honourable friend in the other place was very clear: the United Kingdom opposes an expansion of Israel’s military operations in Gaza. Continued fighting is in nobody’s interests, and we urge all parties to return urgently to talks, implement the ceasefire agreement in full, release the hostages and work towards a permanent peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians. It is absolutely important that the remaining hostages are released and the way to return them safely is through a deal.
To reassure the noble Baroness, Palestinian territory must not be reduced in the conduct of this war. There must be no forced displacement of people from Gaza. A two-state solution remains the only path to a just and lasting peace.
I wish to reassure the noble Baroness on our Government’s actions. I hear what she said about the discussions in the other place, but, as a Government, we have been absolutely focused on this. The Foreign Secretary has spoken to the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, the Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar, the Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer, the EU High Representative Kaja Kallas and the UN Emergency Relief Coordinator Tom Fletcher. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary hosted the Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mohammad Mustafa on 28 April in London and signed a landmark memorandum of understanding, underpinning our strategic partnership and reaffirming our absolute commitment to a two-state solution.
On 23 April, together with France and Germany, the Foreign Secretary issued a joint statement calling on Israel immediately to restart the flow of aid into Gaza, reiterating our outrage at recent strikes by Israeli forces on humanitarian personnel. I also gave a statement to the UN Security Council on 28 April in which I pressed for a ceasefire, the release of hostages, an end to the block on aid and a path to long-term peace. We are putting all our diplomatic efforts into that.
I say to the noble Baroness that our commitment to a two-state solution is unwavering. We are committed to recognising a Palestinian state, at a time that has the most impact in achieving this reality and is most conducive to long-term prospects for peace. We are clear that that does not need to be at the end of the process. In New York, I spoke to the French Foreign Minister and committed this Government’s full support to the two-state solution conference that will be held in June. These are the ingredients of the pathway to delivering the two-state solution, working with our allies. We should take the opportunity to build on the Arab plan for Gaza’s future and develop a credible security and governance plan that is acceptable to both Israel and the Palestinians. We must seize that opportunity. I make it clear to the noble Lord—I have repeated this on many occasions—that there is no role for Hamas in that future Gaza situation, or in a Palestinian state that is recognised by the international community.
We are appalled by Israel blocking aid when it is needed at greater volume and speed than ever before. Israel has now blocked aid for over 50 days, and it is obligated under international law to facilitate humanitarian assistance by all means at its disposal. We stand ready to work alongside Israel, the UN and our partners to assist. But as the UN said, it is hard to see how, if implemented, the new Israeli plan to deliver aid through private companies would be consistent with humanitarian principles and meet the scale of the need. We need urgent clarity from the Israeli Government on their intentions in this regard.
I have reported before on our announced package of support for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including £101 million for humanitarian aid and support for Palestinian economic development. We have been absolutely clear that the extension of settlements is illegal under international law. I hope that my comments reassure both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that we remain absolutely committed to seeking a solution that protects the interests of the State of Israel but also advances the cause of the Palestinian people.
Baroness Morris of Bolton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I very much thank the Minister for his comments and the Government for their support. The Government are absolutely right to oppose the expansion of Israel’s operation in Gaza and to question how the Israeli Government’s aid plan is consistent with humanitarian principles. According to OCHA, the design of the plan will leave the less mobile and most vulnerable without supplies. Can the Minister ensure that the UK Government put pressure on the Israeli Government not only to drop these proposals but to withdraw their parallel plans to ban humanitarian agencies, including those providing vital medical assistance, if they call for justice or accountability? Those agencies and their dedicated staff have years of experience treating Palestinians with compassion and respect, and the international community should insist that aid from them flows freely and without threat or impediment.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. We have been focused on ensuring that agencies are allowed to deliver aid. When we last considered this matter, I made it clear that we were ready and willing—with all agencies, not just UNRWA—to ensure that we can get aid in when this block by Israel is lifted. We are ready to do that, but we are also working very hard diplomatically to ensure that Israel allows aid to get to the people who are most in need.
I did not address the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on the export of arms and international humanitarian law. This Government have suspended relevant licences for the IDF that might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international law in Gaza. Of the remaining licences for Israel, the vast majority are not for the Israeli Defense Forces but for civilian purposes or re-export and are therefore not used in the war in Gaza. The only exception is the F35 programme, due to its strategic role in NATO and the wider implications for international peace and security. Any suggestion that the United Kingdom is licensing other weapons for use by Israel in the war in Gaza is misleading.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, the situation in Gaza is truly horrendous, but Hamas must bear some responsibility for that. Indeed, the Gazan population is rising up against Hamas saying just that. I will briefly address the situation regarding aid. In view of the suggestion that Hamas purloined much of the aid that used to go in and sold it off to the suffering citizens at a profit, what is the Government’s view of Israel’s proposal—which must be taken seriously—to deliver the aid through aid hubs, arranging for it to be delivered directly to the people who really need it? That, surely, must be a way forward and should be greeted positively rather than negatively, if it can be expanded.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his question, which I tried to address in my opening comments to the Front Benches opposite. The scale of the problem is such that it requires all agencies and NGOs to get in and deliver the aid needed—it is huge. As I said, the United Nations itself has said that it is hard to see how, if implemented, the new Israeli plan to deliver aid through private companies would be consistent with humanitarian principles and, most importantly, meet the scale of need. By the way, I say to my noble friend that I am absolutely clear about Hamas’s responsibility and the criminal acts it has committed, and that is why we see no role for it in a future Gaza.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the June conference that the French seem to be planning to convene, along with the Saudis, offers an opportunity to move forward on the two-state solution? Does he agree that our position would be much more credible if it were that, should the two-state solution negotiations not end but begin again, everyone who goes to that conference, including the UK, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Palestine, should recognise each other and get rid of the recognition issue? That idea was put forward in the Private Member’s Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. The Foreign Office should have had time—quite a few weeks—to consider it by now, and I would like to hear what its response is. Then, the negotiations on a two-state solution should concentrate on the crucial issues such as Jerusalem, the boundaries, security and refugees. They might take a very long time to conclude, but we would at least have removed from the table the issue of recognition and we would be in a better place.
Can the Minister also share with the House anything that the Government have been able to glean about the two rounds of negotiations between the United States and Iran over its nuclear programme?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
To answer the latter point, I am afraid that I am not able to give the noble Lord any further information in relation to those discussions. When the French Foreign Minister was chairing the Security Council and we had the discussion on Gaza, I made it absolutely clear that France’s leadership in preparing for the conference in June has been vital. We want to make our full contribution in moving forward towards a two-state solution. Of course, we have been in touch with all key partners in the run-up to the conference. We should take the opportunity to ensure that we build on the Arab plan for Gaza’s future.
I repeat that we have been absolutely clear that we will recognise a Palestinian state at a time when it is most conducive to delivering that two-state solution. I am not going to predict the outcome of the June conference or what our position will be, but our absolute commitment to it is about how we best achieve it on a sustainable footing.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register. Conferences themselves will not solve the issue. People are dying in Gaza and hostages continue to be held. The Government in which I served had direct engagement on the ground and the Minister knows that we used every lever, including through sanctions. It is important that aid is delivered not just through land routes but air routes, working with key neighbouring partners and people within the Israeli Government and institutions who understand what is going on. In the Talmud, the Jewish scripture, it says that saving a single life is like saving the whole world. There are many in Israel and that region who want to ensure that the suffering of the people of Gaza ends now and the hostages are brought home. Conferences have their place, but we need action right now.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord. On one of the many occasions when I was challenging him as the Minister about ensuring access to aid, he said that airlifts and sea routes are all possible, but the main thing to deliver the scale of aid is opening those road routes with trucks. We are absolutely ready. We have got those trucks full, we are ready to deliver that aid, and we need the Israeli Government to ensure that they can have that access. We are putting every bit of diplomatic pressure, with our allies, to ensure that they do this. I accept that action is not about talking, it is about persuading.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome much of the Minister’s response to what the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said about the appalling, massive expansion of the war in Gaza, although I was a little disappointed by his response on recognising Palestine as a state, which is now urgent.
I raise a slightly different issue: the Knesset is now taking steps which will destroy Israeli NGOs’ work to hold their Government to account for their cruel and inhumane treatment of Palestinian civilians. The change in the law being proposed threatens to destroy these NGOs and in doing so will deny Israeli civil society their voices. Can the Minister say what steps the Government will take to try to stop this happening, so that independent monitoring and holding to account by NGOs can continue?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My noble friend makes a very good point, and she is well aware of both my personal and this Government’s commitment to supporting civil society in all contexts. We have been pressing diplomatically. A lot of legislation has gone through the Knesset which still is not being implemented. We are absolutely clear that there should be no impediment to NGOs and civil society delivering that support and aid that are so desperately needed in both Gaza and the occupied West Bank.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, according to OCHA, more than 13,000 children have been killed and an estimated 25,000 have been injured since the terror attack in October 2023. I welcome the Government’s decision to allow two children from Gaza to come to the United Kingdom for specialist treatment under Project Pure Hope. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government intend to accept more children needing urgent medical intervention or specialist care?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I am unable to confirm that, but I think the noble Baroness knows that we have been absolutely committed to trying to ensure that medical support and aid are delivered, either through the mobile units that we have been funding, through neighbouring countries or, in the case the noble Baroness mentioned, by bringing children here. The most important thing is how we can get immediate medical treatment for them, and that is what we are focused on.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I accept the Minister’s Statement and thank him very much for all he has done, but at the same time we need to look at the local community. I have asked this before. We have seen no pictures of women on the television at any of the peace talks, whether in America, Saudi Arabia or anywhere. It has just been pictures of men and there have been no answers to the issues that affect women. There has been nothing about how the peace is going to be dealt with or about education, health and where people will go while their parts of the world are being rebuilt—if there is anywhere for them to go. At the moment it is all just about the peace, but nothing about how the peace is going to be, who are going to be the peacekeepers on the ground, and how we are going to deal with the question of America, which does not believe in sexual violence in conflict any more and is not willing to look at women at the peace table either. I would like an undertaking from the Government that they will ensure—as we have been promised before—that we will have women there, abide by what we have agreed before, and tell the Americans this.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. As she knows from previous debates, we are absolutely committed to women, peace and security. Our new Special Envoy for Women and Girls, the noble and learned Baroness—
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
—Lady Harman. I nearly said “Hayman”. She and I were both at the Commission on the Status of Women at the United Nations, and we focused on this agenda: how you ensure that when talking about peace you include and embrace women in those processes. Certainly, the support we have been giving to the Palestinian Authority is focused on that too. When the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary met Prime Minister Mustafa of the Palestinian Authority, we were focused on that delivery. But, of course, until we get that ceasefire agreement implemented and that necessary humanitarian aid in, it is very difficult to do much more.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that over 1.7 million tonnes of aid have been delivered in Gaza and that under Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, aid can be restricted when it is known that it has been seized by enemy forces. Anyone who has been to Kerem Shalom crossing, as I have, will know that the aid is being stolen by Hamas for its own advantage. The Minister has quite rightly said there is no role for Hamas in the future of a potential state of Palestine, but at the same time, he is urging Israel to sit down and negotiate with, I assume, Hamas. What steps are the Government taking to find moderate groups of people, to reach out to them, to encourage them to try to create some civic society and get them to the negotiating table, because they are the only interlocutors who can reach an agreement that would be acceptable to all parties?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I suspect that there are people in the State of Israel who share some of those commitments. Of course, we very much welcomed President Trump’s and the US’s involvement in achieving that ceasefire agreement. Let us not forget that the Government of Israel signed a ceasefire agreement. It is a fact that Hamas has broken some of it, but I am not taking sides; I am saying that both sides have an agreement, so let us ensure that they both return to the table and stick to that agreement so we can get a ceasefire and get the aid in as necessary.
I hear what the noble Lord says about aid being stolen by Hamas and others, but the simple fact is— I mentioned this before—that the scale of the problem is so huge that we need to use every mechanism to get aid in. It has been very serious, and I think all noble Lords from all sides of the House recognise the humanitarian crisis that now exists in Gaza.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, one of the single most important steps that could be taken immediately, which would help to end the suffering and bring an end to all the violence that we are seeing, would be the release of the hostages, so what are the Government doing, along with our partners, to put pressure on Hamas to release the hostages? Why do they think the hostages remain in captivity, both dead and alive?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I think I have made it clear to the House, and I repeat to the noble Lord, that we have been absolutely clear that the remaining hostages must be released, and the way to do that is through the deal that was agreed. That is really important. We have been speaking to all our allies and partners to ensure that they too are putting pressure on both parties to ensure a return to the negotiating table to stick to the ceasefire agreement so that we can get the hostages released. The noble Lord is absolutely right that that is the way forward; it is important that they are released, and they are a priority, but it is also a priority to ensure that we get that humanitarian aid in to support the people of Gaza as, after all, the women and children who have been killed are not responsible for holding the hostages.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, the long-term path to peace in the Middle East and securing the two-state solution that my noble friend spoke so passionately about will come only from the bottom up in civil society by changing and supporting attitudes among Israelis and Palestinians towards coexistence. In this spirit, what update can my noble friend the Minister provide on UK support for the International Fund for Israeli-Palestinian Peace?
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.
India-Pakistan: Escalation
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, I will make a Statement on India and Pakistan. The whole House will have been closely following developments in recent weeks following the horrific terrorist attack in Pahalgam on 22 April that left 26 tourists dead. Last night, soon after 2100 British Summer Time, Indian forces launched missile strikes against nine sites in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. The Government of India have described their actions as
‘measured, non-escalatory, proportionate, and responsible’
and deliberately targeted at terrorist infrastructure. Following India’s actions last night, a military spokes- person for Pakistan has stated that 26 Pakistanis have died and 46 were injured, including civilians and children. At a meeting of their National Security Committee earlier today, the Pakistani Government have stated that they reserve the right to respond in a manner of their choosing.
This is an incredibly delicate moment in an evolving and fast-moving situation. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister noted in Prime Minister’s Questions, rising tensions between India and Pakistan are a serious concern. The Government have been monitoring the situation closely and staying in close contact with all the key partners. Since the developments overnight, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has been in contact with Indian External Affairs Minister Jaishankar and Pakistani Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Dar. Our high commissioners in Delhi and Islamabad have also been in close contact with their hosts, and this morning I spoke to Pakistani Finance Minister Aurangzeb. The Foreign Secretary has also been co-ordinating closely with other partners, notably the United States and in the Gulf.
Our consistent message to both India and Pakistan has been to show restraint. The United Kingdom has a close and unique relationship with both countries. It is heartbreaking to see civilian lives being lost. If this escalates further, nobody wins. We clearly condemned the horrific terrorist attack last month—the worst such attack in Indian-administered Kashmir for many years, but now we need all sides to focus urgently on the steps needed to restore regional stability and ensure the protection of civilians. The United Kingdom will continue to work closely with our international partners in pursuit of short-term de-escalation and longer-term stability. The Foreign Secretary will have a chance to discuss the situation with EU Foreign Ministers in Warsaw today. He and the whole Government will stay in close touch with the Governments of India and Pakistan, as well as those with influence in the region.
De-escalation is of the utmost importance, not least given the large number of British nationals in the region. The safety of British nationals will always be our priority. Overnight, we issued factual updates to our travel advice for both India and Pakistan, updating British nationals on military activity and potential disruption to flights in the region. British nationals in India and Pakistan should stay up to date with our travel advice and follow the advice of local authorities.
I am acutely aware that for many communities across the United Kingdom, and Members across this House, this is a very personal and sensitive situation. The British-Pakistani and British-Indian communities make a huge contribution to this country. We recognise that this will be a very difficult time for many. We look to all community and faith leaders to spread a message that now is a time for coming together across religious and ethnic differences. We now need to see calm heads. Britain will continue to play our full part for de-escalation and diplomacy. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the dramatic escalation of tensions that the Minister has referred to between India and Pakistan is, to put it mildly, cause for great concern. Since the terror attack in Kashmir last month, both countries have engaged in tit-for-tat measures against each other, including expelling diplomats, suspending visas and closing border crossings. However, the level of violence that we have now seen marks a significant shift in how the fallout from the attack is being conducted. Indian authorities have said that the sites that they targeted were “terrorist infrastructure” and places where Kashmir attacks were “planned and directed”. These Benches are clear that India should always hold the right to take reasonable and proportionate steps to defend itself from further terror attacks. The UK has long-standing security agreements with India, and we are in a position to support our partners in combating terrorist threats, which affect us all collectively.
I ask the Minister what assistance the Government are providing to Indian authorities to help protect against further terrorist attacks, and does he agree that the UK should act in partnership with India to prevent further terror attacks from being undertaken against its population? We discussed this matter in the aftermath of the Kashmir attacks last month. Noble Lords on all sides of the House implored the Government to urge restraint and to use their diplomatic leverage with both sides to prevent a further escalation of violence, which many feared could be on the horizon. Can the Minister please update the House on the talks that his Government had with both Indian and Pakistani authorities in the immediate aftermath of those Kashmir attacks? Does he believe that the Government should change the way that they approach these discussions, given the further violence that we have witnessed this week?
Finally, I will touch on how this escalation could affect diaspora communities here in the UK. There is, of course, a risk that the tensions that we are seeing played out on the world stage could affect communities from those respective countries in Britain. While working to encourage peace and de-escalation on the world stage, we have also to make sure that we secure it here at home. Please could the Minister outline the steps that the Government are taking to work with these respective communities here in the UK in order to prevent tensions from becoming more serious? Can he assure the House that the Government will work with partners in the police and security services to help to keep these communities safe?
Recent events have demonstrated that an information gap can inflame conspiracy theories and empower those who seek to spread false information at home, particularly on social media. I appreciate that this is, of course, a developing situation, but I hope that the Minister can appreciate the importance of keeping the House and the country updated on any further clarification that the Government receive on the details of these events to help dispel some of that misinformation. Can the Minister please commit to keeping the House updated on this matter as and when further information is forthcoming?
The escalation that we have seen is immensely serious, and both communities in the region and at home are deeply concerned about what further violence may hold. I urge the Government to redouble their efforts and to make every use of the diplomatic relations that we have with both India and Pakistan to encourage a non-violent resolution to this matter. Violence begets violence, and a peaceful resolution must be at the heart of the Government’s efforts to engage with both India and Pakistan. However, we also have a duty to support India in its efforts to prevent any further terror attacks from being committed against its own people. The Government also have a duty to make sure that these tensions are not imported into the UK, and I hope the Minister can provide reassurance to the House that this risk has been identified and is being managed.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I also thank the Minister for repeating the Statement in the House. Reports of Indian military strikes against locations in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Pakistan, as well as shelling by Pakistan, are indeed very alarming. Particularly as we have here two nuclear powers, it becomes even more vital that India and Pakistan de-escalate the current crisis and avoid engaging in further action. Maintaining open lines of communication is clearly vital. Can the Minister spell out what further engagement the UK Government plan with these Governments and with other partners, including the UN, to help maintain an open dialogue between them and to support international attempts at mediation? Once again, violence is not the answer.
The murder of 26 people was indeed horrific, and every effort must be made to bring the gunmen to justice. Terrorists have an interest in destabilising both sides, and that is why it is vital to engage with the leaders on both sides, so I would like to know more about how the Government are working to support that open dialogue between India and Pakistan. I know that it has been very difficult over the years, but, specifically, how are the Government working alongside international partners to encourage New Delhi to reverse its suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, and how are the Government working with Islamabad to agree to reopen its airspace to Indian-owned airlines? What else can the international community do to help stabilise relations now? Can the Minister fill in more detail about what is being done to support British citizens in the area?
The Government also need to ensure that all those of Indian and Pakistani descent living in the United Kingdom are fully supported. For many, the latest escalations will be of grave concern to them and their families. How are the UK Government working to support these communities in the wake of recent escalation? As the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, just mentioned, there is a risk that social media disinformation may inflame matters here. How is that being monitored and addressed? Can the Minister spell out what the Government are doing?
We indeed face so many conflicts—Ukraine, the Middle East, which we have just discussed, and Sudan—so many global challenges; therefore, everything must be done to stop this escalating into yet another. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their contributions. Our message is very clear: regional stability is in the interests of both India and Pakistan. If this escalates further, nobody wins, as the noble Baroness said, and all are at risk. We encourage both countries to engage in effective dialogue and find a swift and lasting diplomatic route to maintain support.
The Prime Minister set out earlier today that rising tensions between India and Pakistan will be, as the noble Baroness acknowledged, a serious concern to many across the United Kingdom. We are engaging urgently with both countries and with other international partners, encouraging dialogue, de-escalation and the protection of civilians. The Prime Minister has been in touch with Prime Minister Modi, as the Deputy Prime Minister has with Prime Minister Sharif. The Foreign Secretary continues to be in touch with his counterparts in both countries, and with the US and France, to encourage dialogue, avoid further escalation on all sides and ensure the protection of civilians. We are taking that dialogue, including through the United Nations. Civilians must be protected. We urge India and Pakistan to respect international humanitarian law. The loss of civilian life is tragic. I am deeply saddened by the news of casualties and offer my condolences to the families who have lost loved ones.
The noble Baroness asked about efforts to support British nationals. Protecting our citizens is the first duty of any Government and the safety of British nationals in the region remains our priority. The FCDO continues to monitor developments closely and stands ready to support any British nationals 24/7. As the Foreign Secretary outlined at the International Relations and Defence Committee last week, British nationals in the region should follow the FCDO’s travel advice for the country that they are in, along with the advice of local authorities. We issued factual updates to the travel advice for India and Pakistan overnight. This included details of the disruption of flights to and from India and the Indian Government’s announcement of a civil defence mock drill on 7 May in several states. This drill may include temporary power cuts or blackouts and the suspension of mobile signals. For Pakistan, airspace restrictions may be announced or changed at short notice. British nationals should contact their airline for up-to-date information.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness both raised the rising tensions between India and Pakistan, which, as the Prime Minister set out earlier today, will be of serious concern for many across Britain. My colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government continue to liaise with the diaspora communities here. My noble friend Lord Khan has been committed to this. He is also arranging for parliamentary engagement meetings to ensure that MPs and Peers will be fully aware of what we are doing. Last week we emphasised, when the right reverend Prelate asked a question, that we are focusing on ensuring that all faith leaders are involved in this to address those tensions through building community cohesion.
The noble Lord raised security, which is of deep concern to India and Pakistan. Minister Falconer set out earlier today our concern about the deteriorating security situation in Pakistan. The United Kingdom and Pakistan have a shared interest in countering terrorism, which is impacting our neighbours. We are committed to working together to combat that terrorist threat. The noble Lord will appreciate that I will not go into details about that, but he can rest assured that we are very concerned and are doing everything that we can to address that issue.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as someone who has heritage from India and Pakistan. I always joke on what is a serious issue that, with my wife’s heritage from Pakistan and mine predominantly from India, we have made it work, so I am sure that the two countries can as well.
In all seriousness, we are on the brink. We have seen not just an escalation but the amassing of troops. That is very evident on the Indian side in my mother’s home region of Rajasthan. My question is specific. I agree totally with the Government’s position. I heard Minister Falconer’s Statement about ratcheting down the tensions and de-escalation. However, this is a frozen conflict. We must ensure that we get to where we were before. We have been there with former Prime Minister Vajpayee and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, whose brother is currently Prime Minister in Pakistan. Peace is possible. A lasting peace can be on the horizon. However, once we have ratcheted down the current tensions, God willing, will the Government be committed and use every lever—diplomatic and through back channels—to ensure that the momentum from ratcheting down the current tension results in a lasting, sustainable and final peace in India, Pakistan and, importantly, in Kashmir?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Lord and I have discussed these issues many times. His Government and this Government are at one on de-escalation and stable relationships being the priority. From those stable relationships come the opportunity to address a longer-term solution. As he rightly says, it is a solution that India and Pakistan must address themselves while taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s Statement and agree that it has been heartbreaking to see the loss of Kashmiri lives on both sides of the line of control. I declare an interest as I am from Kashmir and my brother-in- law is in Chakswari, a town which is just down the valley from one of the towns that was hit, Kotli, so it is personal for me. We as a family are praying for his safe return to the United Kingdom with his son.
I want to press the Minister on how we de-escalate. The Indus Waters Treaty, negotiated with the World Bank in the 1960s, gave Pakistan access to the water from the three northern rivers and India from the three southern rivers. Can the Government ask New Delhi to return to it? It is really important; water is essential for human life. I also want the Government to call on Pakistan to open up Pakistani airspace for Indian airlines. Those two actions jointly will help to calm the situation. We cannot have tension in the streets. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, about community tensions. We cannot see what we saw in Leicester, where groups of young men from both communities were at each other’s throats. Any attack on any high commission in London should be condemned. I hope that the Minister can answer the questions about the Indus Water Treaty and the airspace for Indian airlines.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for those questions. He is right. Last week, in addressing an Urgent Question, we covered the water treaty and appealed for it not to be disrupted. As he says, access to water is fundamental to human life. I understand his point about airspace. Any action by both Governments that can de-escalate and create that opportunity for a return to stable relationships is important.
All our diplomatic efforts are to ensure that de-escalation, which I know my honourable friend Minister Falconer stressed earlier today, and we are working through all possible channels to deliver that message. The noble Lord is also right to focus on community cohesion, and we will focus on that, too. It is not just the Government’s voice; we need to ensure that all community leaders and faith leaders can embrace that call. I welcome his comments very much.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, the final report from my noble friend Lord Austin on the tensions and violence in Leicester in 2023 is obviously still awaited, but can the Minister reassure the House that officials across government and locally in those regions have been able to apply lessons from what happened in 2023 to ensure the greatest possible resilience and outreach between communities and no repeat of that violence?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord. All government departments, particularly my colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, are absolutely focused on learning the lessons of the past, and I think they will be very aware of his comments. The current situation is such that we need to do more: we need to call on all community leaders and faith leaders to stress the importance of de-escalation and working together as good neighbours in the United Kingdom, which I think can have a positive impact on the relationships between the two countries concerned.
Lord Ranger (Con)
My Lords, through the Minister, I request the Prime Minister to exercise his influence in bringing some sense into India and Pakistan. They are developing countries. They have very limited resources, which their people need. We cannot have wars. There are no winners. Lots of innocent lives are lost on both sides. I am also mindful of the effect that it will bring to the United Kingdom, where there are two large communities of Indian and Pakistani origin. They have one country and King and, as a result, they should be one. Therefore, the escalation of war will not do any good to us in this country or in many other countries where large diasporas from Pakistan or India are settled. Therefore, it is paramount for our own interest and our own community cohesion that we exercise pressure on those countries that, for the greater good of humanity, they should stop and work on the peace, because there are no winners in the war.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right. As I said at the beginning, if the situation escalates further, nobody wins. I reassure him, as I think I said in my other responses, that the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister are focused on one objective, which is to ensure dialogue and de-escalation. He is also right to focus on the fact that there is a dividend for peace, which is about economic growth and serving the peoples of both countries.
Lord Camoys (Con)
My Lords, I remember almost as if it were yesterday the deeply sobering briefing I received before I was posted by the Foreign Office to New Delhi at the beginning of 2004 about just how dangerous the conflict between India and Pakistan had become in the preceding year. Everyone’s efforts at that time were focused on urgently de-escalating both sides, and it is essential that cool heads prevail again now. The international community then played an essential role to make sure both sides realised just how serious the situation was getting and de-escalated. I am very grateful for the Minister’s Statement and everything that he is doing. Can he reassure us that we and our allies will be providing the same role again? This could so very easily get out of hand.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I agree absolutely with the noble Lord. I think Minister Falconer made clear in the other place our commitment to do just that and work with our allies. At all levels of government, and from the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, we are committed to doing that, working with our allies through all channels possible. It is about trying to ensure that we maintain that situation where both sides start talking rather than taking other action.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
My Lords, in respect of local leadership here in Britain, there is a very large number of local councillors of Indian origin, Pakistani origin and, indeed, Kashmiri origin, from all political parties. Can the Minister tell the House what conversations he has had with his colleagues in the communities department about employing them to help ease the tensions at this extremely difficult time?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I think it is the other way around: my noble friend Lord Khan spoke to me today about his efforts and his work. We had quite a detailed exchange last week following an Urgent Question where we talked about how we needed to focus on community cohesion and working together. My noble friend is working through local councils, liaising with them and faith leaders. I know that our special envoy is also working with local communities. It is important that we see it not just as a government responsibility; local councils, faith leaders and community leaders all have a responsibility to focus on this.
Counter Terrorism Policing: Arrests
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the police, security services and other agencies across the country who have worked and continue to work around the clock to keep our country safe. Ken McCallum, the director-general of MI5, revealed last year that the British security services had foiled 43 late- stage terror plots since March 2017. Every one of these attacks threatened lives and sought to attack our very way of life. The work that our police and security services do every day should not be taken for granted, and I know the whole House will join me in recognising this work and paying thanks to those men and women who protect us.
On the events of 3 May, the scale of this operation is simply quite staggering. Eight men in total have been arrested by the Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism Command, five on suspicion of preparation of a terrorist act in several locations across the country. I appreciate that this is a sensitive and ongoing matter and that the Minister is limited in what he can say. However, it is clear from what the Minister in the other place said yesterday that there are grounds to believe that this was a threat made at a state level by Iran.
The threat posed to British lives by Iran is considerable. Last year, Ken McCallum confirmed that the intelligence services and the police had identified 20 credible Iranian plots to kill or kidnap people in the UK since 2022. What we have seen in the last few weeks is not an isolated incident but another attempt to undermine our values, our way of life and the safety of our people. Given the scale of the risk posed by Iran and Iranian-backed organisations, I ask the Minister what advice the Government have received from the police and the intelligence agencies about proscribing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. What is the Government’s assessment of the impact of proscription in terms of how it will improve their capacity to combat the threat posed by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps? Furthermore, can the Minister update the House on the discussions that the UK Government are having with their counterparts in Iran to hold them to account for the threats that that organisation poses to our democratic society and security? We have an ambassador and diplomats in Tehran. Can he confirm that urgent discussions are being undertaken with Iranian authorities on this matter? It is important that the Government take appropriate steps to strengthen their resolve against those who wish to harm us and our communities, and we on these Benches would welcome any steps made in that direction.
The news of these arrests will naturally make people worried. There will be communities around the country that feel particularly at risk, given the nature of the arrests made. Without speculating on any specific target, which I know the Minister is unable to do, can he none the less provide assurances to communities around the country that safeguards are in place to make sure that they are kept safe?
I am aware that the Minister making the Statement in the other place said the Government would not be providing a running commentary on the progress of the investigation, but can the Minister perhaps commit to keeping the House updated on any further developments?
This is a serious issue of national security, and people are feeling under threat in a very tangible sense. An assurance from the Government that they will keep us informed about how they are working to mitigate the threat we face and to implement safeguards for the future would be most welcome and would, I know, be much appreciated by the communities most likely to be targeted by the Iranian actors.
I reiterate my thanks for the work of our security services and the police, who have likely saved several lives through their work on this case alone. While I appreciate that this is an ongoing, sensitive matter, I hope the Minister will address the few questions that I have asked. I know that any assurances he can give to communities at risk will be most welcome.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I too take this opportunity to thank the security services and police for what they do. The weekend’s arrests are an important reminder of how hard they work behind the scenes to keep us all safe. The scale of the threat posed by the Iranian regime is great, and there is clear evidence of Tehran’s willingness to disregard the rule of law to silence critics and fuel extremism.
UK-based Iranians have been the main targets, with mounting proof of Iran seeking to control its citizens abroad through intimidation, harassment and violence. That culminated in last year’s stabbing of a journalist working for the TV station Iran International, attacked outside his London home; and Iranian journalists, including those working for the BBC Persian service, facing daily threats of violence. Meanwhile, Iranian intelligence continues to target Jewish and Israeli individuals abroad, spreading fear and disinformation. I too would like to know if the Minister can confirm that extra security measures are in place to provide vulnerable communities and individuals with protection and reassurance amid these direct and unacceptable attacks on both media and religious freedoms.
In opposition, the Government were clear that they supported the proscribing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation. Canada took that step in June and the United States did so in 2019, but in Britain we have yet to make that call, preferring to keep communication channels open. Does the Minister agree that this weekend’s events indicate that the policy is not working, and that now is the time for the Government to act and to proscribe the IRGC as a terrorist organisation? Not only would that allow tighter control of the UK’s borders; it would enable the police proactively to charge those who materially or financially support the IRGC and enable assets linked to the organisation to be frozen.
The Liberal Democrats have previously welcomed sanctions against those with links to the Iranian regime, and we will support proposals to sanction the Iranian-backed Foxtrot criminal network when they come before the House next week. However, we hope the Government can go further to establish whether those with links to the Iranian regime have assets here in the UK. As such, we would like to see an audit carried out so we can find out where those assets are, including those put in the name of family members, so we can freeze them accordingly.
Thanks to the work of the police and security services, we appear to have been lucky this time, but we must now heed the warning and do more to ensure that the Iranian regime’s reach cannot continue to spread. Given the threat, does the Minister agree that now is not the time to cut the overseas budget, which had previously been used to support vital resilience programmes countering Iran’s malign influence?
It is already clear that the foundations of the previous world order are shifting fast, with America increasingly taking a step back, so can the Minister reassure the House that the Government are taking steps to fill the void by working with their international partners to combat Iran and address the wider situation in the Middle East?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to both Front Benches for their questions, and I will try to answer them as best as I can.
To summarise for the House, colleagues will know that on Saturday 3 May counterterrorism police undertook a series of arrests relating to what I must make clear are two separate incidents and investigations, and a total of eight men were arrested by the Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism Command under counter- terrorism and national security legislation. I can update the House to confirm that seven of those eight men currently remain in custody, and one is on bail with extremely serious and tight conditions. These are the first Iranian nationals arrested under the National Security Act. I join in the tribute that has been paid to the police and the security services, who have managed this event and brought the issues to conclusions on 3 May.
However, as colleagues have mentioned, this is an ongoing investigation so I am limited in what I can say and comment upon, but I want to say first and foremost that it is important that we hold Iran to account. Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness asked what the Government can do to hold Iran to account. Noble Lords will recall that earlier this year, we announced in both Houses of Parliament the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme. It comes into effect on 1 July and ensures that a number of individuals connected with Iran, one of the first countries designated under the scheme, have to register a number of matters under that scheme by 1 July.
As the noble Baroness has mentioned, we have sanctioned a number of criminal entities that Tehran uses to do its bidding, such as the Foxtrot network—related documents will come before both Houses—alongside more than 450 Iranian individuals and entities that have been sanctioned to date by the UK Government.
Both Front Benches have mentioned proscription. It is common knowledge that we keep that under constant review. We have asked Jonathan Hall KC to provide a view on the counterterror framework, which does not fit neatly with existing states to date, and the Home Secretary has asked him to lead a review. I can confirm to the House today that that review has been finalised. We will be publishing it and its response shortly for colleagues in both Houses to examine, and we will make further announcements in due course on those issues.
It has been asked what steps we have taken on international engagement, whether we have consulted our allies and whether the Foreign Office had summoned the Iranian ambassador. In the Statement, we have said that the investigation is still in its early stages and the police are following various lines of inquiry as to the possible motivation of those currently arrested and in custody, or on police bail. I assure the House that as the investigation progresses, I will both engage internationally as appropriate and report back to the House on the issues that have been raised.
We are stronger when we are united, and our allies were supportive of the action over the weekend when this news broke. I know that the Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary have reached out to key international partners to discuss those events with them.
We have judged sanctions to be a vital tool in deterring and disrupting Iran’s malign activity. They demonstrate that, along with our international partners, the UK continues to condemn Iran’s threats to international security and its human rights violations. We will be exploring further sanctions against Iranian-linked criminals, and the National Crime Agency will particularly target those who assist the IRGC and others in laundering their money.
The noble Baroness mentioned the overseas aid budget. There are some difficult decisions that the Government are taking. We have not yet finalised it; I have been in discussions with Ministers in the Foreign Office about that as it impacts upon areas of Home Office responsibility, but those issues are not yet finalised. Again, unfortunately, I cannot give any further detail to the noble Baroness at this point.
Both Front-Benchers mentioned that it is important that we ensure that individuals who are under threat are protected. Members of the House will know that the Home Office has worked with other government departments, as well as with relevant government agencies, to protect those identified as being at risk. The police and security services, as well as tracking down potential plots and threats, are working tirelessly to take other steps to ensure the safety of those concerned. Noble Lords will know that the Government have a general scheme for places of worship, particularly in relation to members of the Jewish community and synagogues. We have significant resource invested in protecting diplomatic missions, places of worship and individuals’ right to practise their religion at their chosen place of worship.
I cannot give details, and I am grateful that colleagues have not asked for further information, on the possible target, because it is an ongoing operation. I hope I can reassure the House by saying that the police have confirmed that they are in contact with the site that was the potential target. They have offered support, they have provided further security and other relevant advice, and, at the appropriate time, when it is safe to do so, the police will, and I will, through this House, confirm the alleged target of this plot. The Home Secretary has given a commitment to update both Houses—herself and the Security Minister in the other place and via me in this House—when it is operationally possible to do so. We will review state threats and the proscription tool as a matter of some urgency, and I hope I will be reporting on what Jonathan Hall has said and recommended to the Government, and our response to that, very shortly.
This is an ongoing investigation. When further information comes to light, the Government will bring it to both Houses. I felt it was important, following the incidents and arrests on 3 May, to make an early Statement, however general that is, to update the House on an important disruptive element identified by the security services, who I reserve absolute praise for in their tracking and taking action to prevent this alleged incident. The House will, in due course, be further notified of the contents of that incident.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
My Lords, I appreciate my noble friend’s efforts and words in coming here today to make this full Statement, but—I think he sensed there was a but coming—on a subject I have raised often, in both this place and the other place, as night follows day, the malign hand of the IRGC will be in the middle of this. This looks like a serious escalation in Iran’s terror threat towards the West, and particularly towards Britain. I am not asking him to comment on that; I am just giving him and the House the benefit of my views. Surely now we are in a position where we should move to full the full banning of the IRGC.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is no surprise that my noble friend raises the issue that he has. I know he has raised it in both this House and in the House of Commons when he was a Member of that establishment. As I have said, I cannot routinely comment on proscription decisions. The House will be aware of our grave concern, long before these operations, about the arrest of Iranian nationals and the activities of different arms of the Iranian state in the UK, putting people’s safety at risk on UK soil. We are continuously undertaking serious security assessments, which are being instigated and updated as a result of incidents. We will continue to resolve and examine action that can be taken and will keep the House updated as soon as possible.
I know this may not be helpful to my noble friend at this moment, but the review that Jonathan Hall KC is undertaking for the Government has been completed and will be published in relatively short order. There will be a response from the Government to that, which will cover some of the issues that my noble friend has mentioned to date. Counterterrorism proscribing is an important tool, and we are not going to shy away from it, but we are waiting for that review to give factual information for us to make decisions, which we will report to the House at the earliest opportunity.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I echo the thanks to our police and security services, whom we rely on so much. The Minister does not have to comment, but it appears that the Israeli embassy was a target of the terror plot linked to Iran. The eight Iranian nationals from the Islamic Republic were clearly members, or at least supporters, of the Islamic Republican Guard Corps. Proscribing the IRGC is about not only sanctions but sending the message to this terrorist regime that it will not be allowed access to the UK under any circumstances. Can the Minister tell us when the Government will stop issuing visas to people coming in from Iran? When do the Government intend to proscribe the IRGC, which has been mentioned, as the terrorist group that it is, along with the USA and other European countries?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the questions from the noble Baroness. I again confirm to the House that it is not at the moment in the interests of the Government, the security services or the police to give further information about the target of this potential plot. I cannot comment on the issues that the noble Baroness has mentioned about that case, but, rest assured, and I give a commitment firmly to the House that, when I am able to do so, I will do so. At this stage, I am not able to.
I hope I have covered the point about proscription in answer to other colleagues. I say again, for the benefit of doubt, that it is something that we keep under review. If and when any proscriptions of any nation or organisation happen, they will happen immediately and will not be trailed in the House, for reasons that we wish to maintain.
The foreign influence registration scheme—FIRS—that we brought in particularly relates to Iran and will operate from 1 July. On 4 March, we said that the whole of the Iranian state, including the intelligence services, the IRGC and other organisations, will be placed in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. I hope that sent a clear signal that we are concerned, as I know the noble Baroness is, about the activities of the Iranian state.
As I said to the noble Baroness on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, we have judged that sanctions are a vital tool in deterring and disrupting threats. We have put in place sanctions, and the National Crime Agency will continue to look at pursuing sanctions and assets where criminal activity is taking place.
The noble Baroness mentioned immigration measures and visas. We are undertaking work to consider new ways of enforcing our robust Immigration Rules, with a focus on taking action against those who promote Iranian interference in the UK that targets and undermines the safety and interests of our country. The Home Office has already applied robustly the Immigration Rules to protect UK national security, and we will not hesitate to block and to stop completely applications from people whom we judge, through our security and intelligence agencies, to be a threat to our security. We have already, in a range of immigration cases, protected the country from state threats. We will not hesitate to do that further, and we keep that under review.
The noble Baroness often presses me to go further. I understand why. I can give her the answers that I have given her, and I will update her and the House on matters at an appropriate time.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, these arrests are of course only one aspect of the array of measures that the UK authorities need to take to protect British citizens from the malign impact of Iran. Does the Minister share my concern that the Charity Commission is being too slow in investigating the growing number of Iran-linked charities that have been brought to its attention? Can he work across government to do whatever it takes to support the commission, cajole it or, if necessary, threaten it with reform unless it moves faster against this real and credible threat?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord and can reassure him that not just British citizens but any citizens in the UK who face threats from a regime such as Iran will have the protection of our security services. It is extremely important that we do that. The noble Lord has raised the issue of the Charity Commission before, and I share his concerns around Iranian-aligned centres in the UK and the malign influence that they have on our society and on individuals. The Charity Commission is undertaking inquiries into both the Islamic Centre of England and the Al-Tawheed Charitable Trust, and we in the Home Office are tracking closely the progress of those investigations. The Charity Commission has said that it takes this matter very seriously. I know that it is examining robustly evidence of wrongdoing and making referrals to other agencies where appropriate. Following the noble Lord’s intervention, I will again put down a marker with the Charity Commission and ask about further progress. But, essentially, I hope he accepts that the case is made, the commission is on the case, we share that concern and I hope we will get speedy resolutions.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, I echo many of the calls that have been made to thank our police and security services for the hard work they have undertaken, and in particular the work they did over the weekend. As has been alluded to, last year the head of MI5 said that, since 2022, the UK had faced at least 20 plots backed by Iran, which represented potentially lethal threats to British citizens—UK residents as well as Iranians living here. The arrests over the weekend suggest that more plots can now be added to that score. I echo the calls from many noble Lords across the House, including my noble friend Lord Cryer, for proscription of the IRGC. Perhaps I might press the Minister once more on proscription. I listened very closely to what he said and we look forward to the report that has just been concluded by Jonathan Hall KC. When do the Government expect to respond to that review, and will my noble friend share with the House whether he expects that in the review there will be recommendations specifically on the proscription of the IRGC? If not, what process could lead from the review to the ultimate proscription of the IRGC?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend, whom I welcome to the House: this is the first time I have had the opportunity to answer a question from her since she joined.
It is important that we keep these matters under review. As I said in response to earlier questions, we are doing that. As a result of the incidents on 3 May, the security services and the police are making further assessments, and we are updating as a result of those incidents to ensure that we can make an up-to-date assessment. We will update the House as soon as we can on the outcome of those assessments. As I have said already, this is an ongoing investigation and until the end of the investigation we cannot take specific action accordingly.
I do say, and have said, that the proscription status of any organisation is now being examined by Jonathan Hall KC. That examination is taking place because, in the past, many of the threats were from organised groups or individuals; they were not state-backed terrorist threats. Therefore, we specifically asked Jonathan Hall KC to advise the Government on how we approach proscription for organisations that might be linked directly to a state. That review is due shortly, we intend to publish it shortly and we intend to try, if possible, to publish the Government’s response at the same time. I hope that the noble Baroness will be as patient as she can be, because we will be taking action on resolving how we deal with state threats. Having commissioned Jonathan Hall KC, we want to have the results of his deliberations and to respond to them, because they will help advise the Government on the best course of action.
Lord Ranger (Con)
My Lords, first, I congratulate our security forces and thank them for their superb job in stopping these terrorists in their tracks. We are a liberal democracy, we enjoy huge freedoms in this country and we also respect, accept and protect diversity. Unfortunately, there are certain regimes that are totally opposed to our way of thinking. They have no respect for diversity or for women, and we have to make it very clear that anyone who comes to disturb our way of life will not be tolerated and that there will be zero tolerance of any act of terrorism of any kind against any British citizen.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely correct. The first duty of any Government is to protect their citizens, and citizens from other countries who are residing here, in legal and appropriate ways. That is a key element of the work that goes on, day in and day out, by the security services, led by Sir Ken McCallum, from police services across the country, from the counterterrorism unit and from our officials in the Home Office. That is why we wanted to reassure the House by making this Statement in the House of Commons and now in this House, to show that action was taken last week. Because there will be speculation about what has happened, and why, we wanted to indicate that we had taken determined action.
However, as it is an ongoing investigation, until it is resolved we cannot give full details of targets, incidents and those involved, and also when the Crown Prosecution Service will take action accordingly. Noble Lords can rest assured, however, that security is our first duty and that is why the steps we have taken on the Iranian regime in relation to foreign influence and sanctions are important. We will keep everything under review, as I said, and I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support for the actions of the Government to date.
Antisemitism on University Campuses
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cryer
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps are being taken to eliminate antisemitism on university campuses.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to have secured this important debate. It is important because I think it is beyond dispute that antisemitism has been rocketing in recent years, not just in this country but across many parts of the globe—but, pertinently to this debate, in this country and across certain educational institutions. Sadly, on a personal note, I will say that the situation was made infinitely worse by the former leadership of my own party, which effectively invited racists into the ranks of the Labour Party and then protected them.
Again on a personal note, I am very pleased to be here with my noble friend Lady Berger. She and I were Members of the other House for a long time, and I saw probably just a fraction of the titanic amount of abuse and threats that she received, very often from Labour Party members. I was born into the Labour Party and I will die in it—not just yet, but one day I will. I joined the party when Jim Callaghan was Prime Minister, which gives some idea of how long I have been in it, and the five-year period of escalating antisemitism in our ranks was far and away the worst I experienced as a Labour Party member.
I come from a very anti-racist background, but I grew up in a world, as many of us did, in which there was a general belief—this was in the 1960s and 1970s—that antisemitism had been dealt with when the guns fell silent in 1945. How wrong can you be?
If any noble Lords are not familiar with the work of the Community Security Trust, the CST, I suggest they read its reports and look at its website. It is one of the most important, if not the most important, anti-racist organisations in the country; it has maintained that position—a unique position, really—in anti-racist research for many decades. In December 2024, its latest report on campus antisemitism found that there had been a 117% increase in antisemitic incidents on campuses during the previous two academic years, from 2022 to 2024. The Union of Jewish Students, which also does much good research in this area, recorded a staggering 413% increase in antisemitic incidents from the academic year 2022-23 to 2023-24, with 53 incidents in the first year and 272 in the second. That is a staggering rise and gives some idea of the momentous challenge that we face in this country.
The StandWithUs report, with which my noble friend Lord Turnberg is intimately acquainted, was launched, I think, this morning. It was covered in the press, if anybody wants to read up on it, with various reports in this morning’s newspapers and media outlets. The report looks at individual Jewish student experiences and student voices. Page after page of the report is littered with examples of loud and virulent support for Hamas and Hezbollah. It is worth bearing in mind, because it often gets lost in the debate, that both Hamas and Hezbollah are proscribed terrorist organisations. Expressing support for proscribed terrorist organisations should be met with the full force of the law, because it constitutes a criminal action.
I will give a few examples from the StandWithUs report. At Queen Mary University, which I mention because it happens to be about a mile from the boundary with my old constituency of Leyton and Wanstead, in east London, some students decided, quite reasonably, to hold a silent vigil on 7 October 2024 to mark the year’s anniversary since the massacres, mass rape, torture and abductions in southern Israel. What followed was that the silent vigil, which was quite a small group, was surrounded by hundreds of students—and probably people who were not students—screaming and shouting slogans, and engaging in threatening behaviour. The university security staff then removed not the aggressors but the students engaging in a silent protest to mark the anniversary. At Birmingham University, a similar vigil was planned, but the university authorities would not even give it permission to go ahead. It had to be moved to a local synagogue, where people were followed and, again, threatened in the street and outside the synagogue.
Many Jewish students bear witness in the report. A Jewish student at University College London, reported feeling unable to attend lectures and seminars due to threats and intimidation. That is a fairly extraordinary step in anybody’s university career. There is example after example, across many universities in this country, including threats, intimidation, physical attacks of Jewish students and Jewish students being ostracised by other students, while in many cases university authorities stand idly by or vaguely, tacitly side with the aggressors.
The rise in antisemitism on campuses did not occur out of a clear blue sky. There are certain malign organisations which encourage antisemitism, whipping it up, and prey on perhaps relatively young minds. I will give a couple of examples—just to get one or two things off my chest, I suppose.
The Stop the War Coalition is not called that anymore; I suspect that is because it put the word “coalition” in there as an act of irony and then took it out. Stop the War springs to mind because, on 9 October, within two days of the barbarous attacks on southern Israel on 7 October, it was outside the Israeli embassy in London, taking part in a protest. This is before the IDF was even really fully thinking about its response. It was hours after the massacre had stopped. Why would anybody engage in a protest outside the Israeli embassy after 1,200 Israelis had been murdered and Hamas had engaged in rape, torture and abduction? In my estimation, it was because it was engaging in the incitement of racial hatred against Jewish people. Stop the War, by the way, has strong links to Hezbollah and Hamas, and therefore, I feel fairly sure, Iran and the clerical fascists of Tehran. Stop the War was set up in 2003 in the run-up to the Iraq war. I was a Labour MP at the time, as I was until a short time ago, and I voted against the Iraq war probably seven times, as well as marching against it and speaking against it. I have never had any link with Stop the War and never will.
Not to be outdone, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign applied for a licence to have a march in London on 7 October. The attack on southern Israel started, I think, at about 6.30 am. Within a few hours, the PSC had applied to the Metropolitan Police for a licence so that it could have a march in central London. Again, why would you do that, unless you are intent on whipping up racial hatred against Jewish people?
My personal view is that membership of any democratic party, frankly, is incompatible with membership of Stop the War or the PSC. That may sound like it is largely directed at members of parties in the centre or centre-left, such as my own party, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. However, when I marched in London against the Iraq war, all those years ago in 2003, I saw a banner—I thought at the time I might be imagining it—which honestly said, “Conservatives against the war”. It is not just the left who opposed the Iraq war. Underneath that banner there were some quite nervous looking people, but they were there to express their views, and I congratulate them on having the backbone to do that.
I have a couple of final points I want to make to my noble friend, because I am almost out of time. I have two requests which I hope the Minister can take on board. First, I am certainly convinced that the Government should look at the possibility of holding an inquiry into campus antisemitism. That would be an important step towards combating it. Secondly, perhaps we could examine the possibility of the Department for Education expanding the section of the national curriculum which covers the Holocaust. I say that because the Holocaust and the Second World War are now slipping out of memory and into history, and therefore it is all the more important that we stamp on the collective consciousness of future generations exactly what horror happened.
I finish with that, because I know I am out of time. We are certainly seeing a sharp and widespread increase in antisemitism. My fear is that, unless we take concrete steps to counter this on campuses and in institutions of education, some of those institutions could turn into incubators for virulent antisemitism.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cryer, for instigating this debate and, in particular, congratulate him on that excellent opening speech. I pay tribute to all he has done in this area.
I refer your Lordships to various Jewish community organisations where I serve as a volunteer, which have contributed to my thoughts, in particular the Council of Christians and Jews.
Today, the StandWithUs report was issued, which confirms the terrible state we have come to, where high levels of antisemitic abuse seem now to be normal on campus. Antisemitism on campus is not new. It was there when I was a student in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but it has now grown to such a worrying level that Jewish students are actually frightened to go to a British university.
It is not just those who are perpetrating attacks. It is the level of ignorance and hate on campus which is so depressing. If only 33% of students describe the Hamas attack as terrorism, we know we are in trouble. The implication is that 67% do not see Hamas as terrorists. How is it that so many students are so misinformed such that, as the noble Lord, Lord Cryer, mentioned, CST antisemitic incident reports rose 413% from one year to another?
I appreciate that, with only some 250,000 Jewish people in a country of some 70 million, many, if not most, will never have met a Jewish person or heard their story. The roots of the problem, in my opinion, may well be found in schools, which most university students will have recently left. We have seen evidence of teachers in WhatsApp groups referring to ZioNazis, and National Education Union officials undertaking activities such as clearing Israeli-made food from supermarkets, filming themselves doing it and circulating those films. The NEU is preoccupied with anti-Israel resolutions. It is in schools where the prejudice can start and universities where it explodes. The Government have unparalleled relationships with the teaching unions. Are they talking to them about this?
We have seen tough action in the States. No one, including me, likes all of Trump’s actions, but he has showed a decisive determination to deal with antisemitism on campus. Over here, the Union of Jewish Students—UJS—points out that campuses have become an increasingly hostile and exclusionary environment for Jewish students. I visited Cambridge University last year to see the camp and tents outside King’s College where the cry for the elimination of the Jewish people in Israel was made repeatedly. The UJS tells us that repulsive Holocaust inversion takes place, where the roles of victims and perpetrators are reversed.
The Government know all this, but do they act? In September 2024, Keir Starmer gave a speech to the Holocaust Educational Trust—I was there—and acknowledged antisemitism on campus and promised to deal with it. In the very same month, the Minister made a seminal speech on education to the Universities UK conference in Reading. She covered nearly every aspect of education, including freedom of speech, but there was no mention of or reference to antisemitism on campus. Can we be assured that the Minister has read Sir Keir’s speech, which was delivered to a largely Jewish audience, and that there will be joined-up government action?
Universities all need to be reminded of their duty to adopt the IHRA definition and police it. They need to understand that undue hatred of Israel is antisemitic. We need to know that the OfS produces guidance which ensures that universities intervene so that they carry out their duty of care.
I know the Minister has great experience in the education sector and has done for many years. Will she commit personally to engage in this issue by talking to the universities in a clear and public way, which is disclosed to us all so that we can see what has been demanded? If they do not comply, appropriate penalties and actions have to be imposed, as Sir Keir Starmer promised he would do.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I first spoke on this topic in this House in 2007. Even more sadly, we have just marked 80 years since the liberation of Belsen and there have re-emerged some of the same hatreds and moral inversions. By that I mean that the victims have been painted as killers and the tragedy of the Shoah is downplayed.
I give a university example: 18 student bodies have decided to support the legal action to decriminalise Hamas. St Antony’s College in Oxford chooses to host a Mr Mishra, whose theme is that the underlying problem of the West is its sanctification of the Holocaust at the expense of colonialism. The lecturers and their union, the UCU, which should be supporting affected students, are themselves the aggressors. The local branch in Oxford voted for a motion calling for a third intifada until victory. Israel is not the problem, it is the excuse to persecute Jewish students.
The situation is deteriorating, and no remedial action has been taken. I have little faith in inquiries. We know what the situation is; we know what the remedies might be, and we need implementation and enforcement. We need no more hand-wringing or robotic statements from vice-chancellors that
“there is no place for antisemitism, Islamophobia, anti-Palestinian discrimination, or hate directed towards any faith, race, nationality, or ethnic group”
at their universities.
Dehumanisation of Jewish students in many campuses has now become so deeply embedded that people feel no shame in excluding Jewish students from gatherings, mocking them by reverting to centuries-old slurs and turning the Holocaust against them. Students in London have seen swastikas carved in front of them. At UCL, Jewish students were told that Israel killed its own people: a widespread reference to the lie that the 7 October massacre was staged to provoke a war against Gaza—or just staged.
What is common is the universities’ failure to take action. They could rely on the Protection from Harassment Act, the Public Order Act, the Malicious Communications Act, the Terrorism Act and the Equality Act, remembering that freedom of speech ends where hate speech and incitement to violence start. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act would at least help Jewish student societies’ speakers be heard and would not open the door to Holocaust denial and so on, because other laws do that.
It is impossible to imagine that sanctions would not be imposed were the targets of these hateful actions black or other ethnic minorities. The Government and the Office for Students should not hesitate to fine universities that tolerate this hatred and break the law. Staff and students who behave like this should be expelled or suspended. Universities’ funding of student unions should be leveraged to ensure legal behaviour.
The root of the behaviour is religious teaching that Jews are inferior. It demonstrates the failure of Holocaust education, which focuses on dead Jews as a feature of the past and has nothing to say about the long history of antisemitism and the focus of antisemitism today; namely, the State of Israel. As the late and much-missed Lord Sacks pointed out, hatred of Israel is today’s variant of antisemitism. That is what the students have not realised. They need education from school up and they need to know national and government disapproval.
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, I reference my registered interests, not least as the Government’s appointed adviser on antisemitism. I have met representatives of every single university in the UK in the last three years. I have met Jewish students from virtually all the 85 Jewish societies across our universities. I have been, with Jewish students, to a very significant number of universities. I have met, and had discussions with, pre-student applicants from a vast array of schools applying for universities.
There is a danger that Parliament and the Government do not do what the noble Lord, Lord Cryer, has asked in his debate—discuss the steps being taken and what should be done about antisemitism—but spend their time outlining the problem. I have spent the last 40 years dealing with antisemitism in universities, wearing one hat or another, and I could go through chapter and verse, including virtually every single incident in recent years, the most serious of which I have usually been involved in helping to sort out.
But we need to remember two things. First, what happens in the United States in one week is worse than what happens in one year in the UK in the universities. That is a factual statement; it is not an exaggeration. Therefore, there are many things and many problems. I get enough of this nonsense directed against myself, both criminally and non-criminally, day in, day out. I listen to, hear and feel what Jewish students in this country, and academics and other staff in universities, are saying.
But we are also getting a lot of things right. The biggest difference between the UK and the US is that we have one unified Jewish student body. The facts that I always rely on are the facts from the Union of Jewish Students, with its 85 Jewish societies. I can tell noble Lords that that organisation is dramatically stronger, braver, better organised and better trained than it was five, 10, 15, 20 or 40 years ago—far better. That is a huge success story for the Jewish community. In a terrible and traumatic two years in this country, the Union of Jewish Students is a beacon of what can be achieved. Of course there are difficulties, but its success in holding back in the universities and of getting its way in with every single university leadership —at the table, eloquently putting its case in detail, and often getting results—should not be overlooked in this.
What should be done? We do not need any more reports—I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. I have a detailed report that has been with the Government for two years, much of it not yet actioned. There is a lot in there. We have money waiting to be spent on antisemitism training in universities, which is desperately needed—but it should be good-quality training. The Government should do what is needed: give a lead and empower Jewish students but also recognise that the biggest single factor this academic year has been what has been happening to Jewish academic staff, who have been isolated and ostracised. That is hardly ever talked about because they do not have an organisation to go to and to represent them. That is the biggest single danger at the current time, and we are getting nowhere near it. Give the money and the backing to those doing the work. Listen to them, go through them and, when they do well, as well as saying, “This is terrible”, say to them, “Well done, well done, well done. We are with you Jewish students. We are with you, the Union of Jewish Students”.
Lord Gold (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and such a powerful statement. With increased regularity, we are hearing many alarming accounts of antisemitic acts increasingly occurring at our universities. Often hidden behind apparent concern for what might be happening in Gaza, it does not take much analysis to realise that, in too many cases, this concern is just an excuse for outright antisemitism. It is old-fashioned Jew-hating of the worst kind, and it must be stopped. The key issue for me today is to understand what steps are being taken to eliminate antisemitism from university campuses. Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of academic life, but it must never serve as a shield for hatred. Universities must strike a careful balance, promoting free expression while standing firmly against antisemitism in all its forms.
When lecturers or students cross the line, there must be real consequences. Disciplinary action must not only be robust but must also send a clear message: antisemitism will not be tolerated. So suggesting, as happened in one university, that a swastika carved into a desk was “probably an ancient Hindu symbol”, or failing to take action when a Jewish student’s personal, cultural and spiritual possessions were thrown on to the floor in their apartment, as happened at St Andrews University, is wholly unacceptable. Universities have to step up to the plate and take action.
We know that over 200 institutions have adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism, but adoption alone is not enough. Too often it is symbolic, inconsistently applied or ignored when it truly matters. The CST has reported a disturbing 117% rise in antisemitic incidents on campuses over the last two academic years. These are not just numbers; they represent real Jewish students facing real fear and exclusion in what should be safe spaces for learning. The CST report found that these incidents occurred online and on campus, and in some cases were even perpetrated by staff or student union officers.
Jewish students deserve better. Universities must implement the IHRA definition meaningfully, with proper training, swift disciplinary processes and independent complaint procedures. They must ensure that Jewish students feel seen, supported and safe. His Majesty’s Government have rightly taken some action, writing to universities and stressing the use of police referrals, disciplinary measures and even visa suspensions when necessary. The five-point plan and the proposed “tackling antisemitism quality seal” are welcome initiatives. However, as my noble friend Lord Leigh has said, it is not enough.
It is to be applauded that the Government have recognised that leadership must also come from the top of every university. The Prime Minister has said that vice-chancellors must take personal responsibility for protecting Jewish students. What steps are the Government taking to ensure meaningful implementation of the IHRA definition? What assessment has been made of the increase in incidents since October 2023? Will the Government consider linking higher education funding to concrete action against antisemitism? Finally, will the Government withdraw visas from international students who incite racial hatred? We must ensure that our universities are places of light, not hate. Jewish students should never be left to walk alone.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, I commend my noble friend Lord Cryer for securing this important debate and for his powerful and meaningful messages of solidarity and advocacy for the Jewish community.
I declare an interest as a member of the advisory council of the Union of Jewish Students—the UJS—the voice of nearly 10,000 Jewish students across the UK and a body that I proudly joined as a student. It is just over 20 years ago that I gave evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee in the other place about my personal experiences of antisemitism as a student on campus, and here we are discussing these very same issues.
I shall not repeat the statistics. Jewish students across the country today are reporting sustained levels of abuse, intimidation and marginalisation on campus. We have also seen some violent attacks, and this we have never seen before. Since launching the service in October 2023, in just 19 months UJS’s 24/7 welfare support lines have received nearly 2,000 phone calls from Jewish students in need. We have not only seen an increase in incidents but are witnessing an atmosphere in which Jewish students feel the need to choose a different route through campus, to avoid specific spaces or even to miss certain lectures. A campus life where some students do not feel they can fully engage due to fear of hatred or attack is one we must urgently address.
Yet I am pleased to learn that Jewish student pride is at an all-time high. For the vast majority of Jewish students, Jewish life rather than Jewish strife is defining their campus experiences, with UJS engaging over 8,000 Jewish students over the past year. Interfaith events have taken place on numerous campuses, ensuring that collaboration is still able to prevail, and UJS has provided antisemitism awareness training to over 5,000 student leaders, university staff and students.
The resilience of Jewish students is born in part out of a necessity to create safe, supportive spaces in response to the exclusion and hostility they have faced elsewhere. These safe spaces are there thanks to the outstanding work of UJS students and the volunteer-led Jewish societies up and down the country.
Since 7 October, UJS has been living up to the mantra of my dear friend, the late former president Alan Senitt:
“More Jewish students doing more Jewish things”.
This is how the history books will remember this period of campus life, not as one framed by the hatred that Jewish students are experiencing but as one framed in the pride that they have shown for their Judaism, no matter how they choose to live and express it.
It is unacceptable to expect Jewish students to be constantly vigilant and to report incidents of anti-Jewish hatred while institutions continuously fail to act. Universities, colleges and student unions must take proactive steps to meet their duty of care. If universities continue to be slow to act—or, in some cases, refuse to act—the consequence will be that those campuses will become Jewish free. I have already heard parents in this country talking about a number of “no go” university campuses for their children. This is a reality that I think we can all agree is abhorrent.
It is commendable that the Government committed £7 million to fighting antisemitism in our schools and at universities. However, other than a small percentage, this funding is still yet to be allocated to those on the front lines fighting antisemitism and representing the interests of Jewish students. Can my noble friend confirm when this support will be made available?
University leaders must not be allowed to sit idly by while this, the oldest form of hatred, is allowed to continue in their institutions. I ask my noble friend: when will the Government convene university leaders, together with the UJS, to compel them to act decisively and proactively against anti-Jewish racism on their campuses? This is not just a matter of security. Jewish students being able to enjoy the student experience just the same as all their peers is a matter of justice, equality and the fundamental right to feel safe and to flourish in higher and further education.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my interests in the Union of Jewish Students, the Jewish Leadership Council and the Chief Rabbi’s advisory board. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cryer, on this debate and on his excellent introduction.
The integrity and inclusivity of higher education in this country is under threat. UK universities no longer feel like safe places or inclusive spaces for the 9,000 Jewish students on our campuses. They are reporting sustained levels of abuse, intimidation and marginalisation. We have heard from the StandWithUs report, CST and many other organisations just how serious this issue is. Jewish students are continuously facing hostility and are being blamed for the Israeli Government’s actions, even when many of them do not necessarily support the Israeli Government. They have, it seems, no right to free speech and even, as the noble Lord, Lord Cryer, suggested, no right to silent protest either. They are facing the glorification of terrorism not just by student union officers or fellow students but by academic staff as well.
It feels as if Islamist groups have infiltrated our universities at all levels. They seem to be working to normalise support for terror. Does the Minister share my concerns at attempts, supported by British students at universities across the country, including those at leading Russell group universities such as UCL, Edinburgh and LSE, to de-proscribe Hamas? To Jewish students and most Jews, the suggestion that Hamas is not a terrorist group is truly frightening. After the actions that it perpetrated—beheading, rape, kidnapping and ongoing terror—it is, I believe, the duty of many of our universities to wake up to the threats that are all around them. Would the Minister consider fines for universities that tolerate antisemitism and removing student union funding from those that are peddling hate?
Rising antisemitism is rarely the lone or the last expression of intolerance in any society, but I am grateful to the many noble Lords who are supporting this debate tonight and who support the cause of fighting antisemitism on our campuses. I thank the noble Baroness and the Government for taking this issue seriously. As Lord Sacks said,
“Jews cannot fight antisemitism alone. The victim cannot cure the crime”.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Cryer, for introducing this debate and giving us such a wonderful opening address. Conor Cruise O’Brien said that
“anti-Semitism is a light sleeper”.
Well, it was woken with a bang on the morning after the devastating slaughter of men, women and children by Hamas on 7 October, when the blame for that act of terror was soon placed on the victims—Israel and the Jews. The marchers in London and even, I am afraid, Amnesty International, stated as much on 8 October, well before Israel reacted. It is no surprise then that university campuses across the country became hotbeds of antisemitism and anti-Zionism. The report published today by StandWithUs provides the verbal testimony of students from a wide range of universities and it makes devastating reading—I should declare an interest as a trustee of StandWithUs.
I will not repeat the many uncomfortable student statements that we have already heard, save for one:
“I was targeted not for what I said, but for who I am—a Jew”.
Another student had a swastika carved into her desk, as we have heard, and there are many more such descriptions from desperate students. Worst of all is the fact that, despite the complaints many students made to university authorities, they have, by and large, been ignored or worse. As one university said:
“There are no further steps or actions related to this matter”.
It is often said that criticism of Israel is valid; indeed, more than 50% of Israelis are vehemently critical of their Government, but that is not anti-Zionism. It becomes anti-Zionism only when it is taken to mean antipathy to the very existence of the State of Israel. The definition of Zionism is simply the desire to support the only Jewish state in the world, and it is far from implying approval of one or other of the Israeli Government’s actions. What Government in the world are immune to criticism, even our own? But no matter how badly behaved they are, we do not deny their existence. On campuses, just as the strong criticism of China’s treatment of the Uyghurs has not led to the persecution of Chinese students, and just as American students have not suffered a backlash from the behaviour of President Trump—unless they happen to be Jewish—so one may ask: why is it only Jewish students who suffer? It is hard to escape the conclusion that, as Jonathan Sacks said,
“Anti-Zionism is the new antisemitism”.
So, my question to my noble friend the Minister is: when will the promised meeting between Ministers and university vice-chancellors take place? What pressure will be brought to bear on them to support their Jewish students and stop their persecution? Will vice-chancellors be brought to recognise that calls for equity, diversity and inclusion should, in all fairness, be applied to all excluded groups, including Jewish students?
Lord Bew (CB)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cryer, and agree with him in endorsing, as so many other noble Lords have done, the StandWithUs UK report and its important implications for the leadership of our universities.
Like many academics, I am uncomfortable with the Trump Government’s current conflict with Harvard. But Harvard is on a much firmer footing in this conflict with its president saying—in a way that our vice-chancellors are reluctant to do—that antisemitism is a serious problem on campus and acknowledging the depth of the problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, mentioned Conor Cruise O’Brien and one of his many brilliant, insightful comments. In the period since 7 October, one moment stays very much in my mind. For over 10 years, I was chairman of the Anglo-Israel Association. We tried to bring some victims of 7 October and their families to Ireland. To a degree, we succeeded. There were some radio interviews and so on, but we were told that you cannot bring them on to university campuses. These were the victims of this horrendous assault, but we could not bring them on to university campuses.
We do not want to reach such a point in this country —that is the message of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, and of so many other speeches tonight.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, first we should ask, what are the universities doing?
Amid the deeply concerning increase in incidents of antisemitism on university campuses, what I have found perhaps most shocking are the reports of antisemitic behaviour by academics. The Community Security Trust reports academics as well as students with “limited” understanding of what constitutes antisemitism. How can this be so? It is not for lack of clear-cut practical advice. While some universities have strong and effective procedures for dealing with antisemitism, others have been equivocal. Recent evidence from the educational charity StandWithUs UK suggests that antisemitic attitudes and behaviours are actually worse in supposedly elite Russell group universities. So, we have a twin problem: of ignorant or bigoted academics, and vice-chancellors too scared to face down the mob on campus.
The CST reports a large rise in antisemitic incidents during the period following the unspeakable massacre of Jews by Hamas on 7 October 2023, and during the subsequent ferocious and relentless military conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. Emotions have of course run very high on campuses. It may be that young people who have not been taught to make the distinction between legitimate criticism of the policies of the State of Israel and illegitimate slurs against Jews generally—or who have simply been carried away by passion or pro-Palestinian rhetoric—have transgressed into the latter. I do not know. But what has been happening strengthens the case made by my noble friend Lord Mann for better education in schools about antisemitism and justifies the Education Secretary’s recent grant of funds for this purpose.
Yet however fallible some academic leaders may be, it goes against the grain for me to look to government, or any government-appointed agency, to regulate the internal affairs of universities. I do not like to see the Office for Students tasked with policing academic freedom; it should be the other way round. Public intellectuals, securely based in universities, should be articulating the principles that matter, leading public debate and invigilating the politicians.
Nigel Farage brags that he will be the next Prime Minister. When that great day comes, do we want it to be normal that a government agency lays down the law to universities in sensitive matters of policy, with power to fine them when it disapproves of their conduct?
We are at a crisis in western history. The growth of antisemitism in our universities and elsewhere is one manifestation; the rise of neo-fascist parties—Trump’s Republicans and other parties across Europe—under- pinned by a new indifference among young people to democratic values, is another. While we may deplore the attack on academic freedom and the rule of law by the Trump Administration, let us not overlook the attrition of university funding and the justice system by successive Administrations in our own country. The collapse of the western alliance and the global trading system—and the suffering and impoverishment that will follow—at the hands of a wicked ruler, elected to power through democratic process, leaves us on the edge of an abyss. It is, first of all, the responsibility of our universities themselves—all of them—to ensure that they are islands of rationality, where research, teaching and the fearless exchange of ideas can flourish, free of the horror of antisemitism.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, how did we get here? It has been 19 months since the 7 October massacres in Israel and the slaughter of hundreds of men, women and children. Some 250 hostages were taken, and 59 are still held in the underground tunnels of Gaza by Hamas psychopaths and their cohorts.
On the streets of London and the UK, we have witnessed antisemitism on a level that I thought I would never see—especially 80 years since VE Day. Islamic extremism is on the increase. Bullying and harassment of, and attacks on, our Jewish friends and their supporters are rife. Intimidation outside synagogues and other meeting places is a daily occurrence. The call for the extermination of all Jews and the destruction of an ally state is ignored by those who are elected to protect our very being.
It was only a matter of time until it would spill over on to the university campuses. Rent-a-mob is always predictable: they set up camps and continue to vandalise buildings and attack Jewish students and their friends. They disrupt lectures and do not hesitate to threaten anyone who stands up to them. Some of us here have called on the police and Home Secretaries to intervene, but to no avail. The hate protests continue unabated on our streets and on campuses.
At the University of Leeds, the Jewish chaplain Rabbi Deutsch and his family were forced into hiding, with threats of rape and murder, before leaving the country. But it is not only Leeds; other world-class British universities are as culpable. Their chancellors, vice-chancellors and administrations have not lifted a finger to stop this abuse. Numerous examples are outlined in the excellent report by StandWithUs, which has already been mentioned.
We, the taxpayers, fund our universities to the tune of £24 billion a year, yet we are expected to turn a blind eye to what is happening. Those in charge have deliberately ignored the fact that they are answerable to us, and to the parents and students who expect the authorities to ensure that their safeguarding and security are always paramount. The fact that they have abrogated this responsibility should preclude them from being anywhere near the education system, and they should be removed immediately. One of the reasons for their actions is because they receive millions in overseas funding and do not wish to offend their donors, some of whom openly support the actions of terrorists.
Let us be absolutely clear: Hamas is a proscribed terrorist group, which, along with others, is being openly supported. It is an illegal and criminal offence to ignore those supporting its actions. I therefore call on the Minister to put in place steps to revoke the visas of foreign students carrying out these acts and deport them immediately, and, for those who are British citizens, to invoke the full force of the law by removing them from the universities they attend, as is happening in the USA.
Finally, with rights come responsibilities, and those bringing our fantastic universities into disrepute should not be allowed to do so. Mixed messages on Israel do not help, so it is time that this Government stopped pussyfooting around and put a stop to this. History has ways of repeating itself—and, in this case, that cannot be allowed to happen.
Lord Mitchell (Lab)
My Lords, a headline in today’s Times states that antisemitism on UK campuses is getting out of control. This is hardly news—it has been out of control for many years, it is just that events in Gaza have made what was already a bad situation even more toxic and often terrifying.
I speak with some experience. For five years I chaired and financially contributed to an organisation called the Coexistence Trust. Our remit was to bring Muslim and Jewish students into positive social contact with each other, and we had some success. We were a joint Muslim and Jewish organisation. Our two CEOs were from both communities. We were jointly financed by Muslim and Jewish private sources. Typically, four Jewish and four Muslim peers would visit campuses together. We kept the brief tight, with no references to the Middle East; we judged that there was nothing we could do or say that could make any difference. Where we could definitely make a difference was through reference to our common UK experiences and our heritage. I think we made progress. We held joint social events and spoke about common worries on campus, including issues to do with food—halal and kosher—and the non-recognition of religious holidays by university administrators. Seared in my memory is one Muslim woman wearing a hijab saying to an Orthodox Jewish woman: “I do not understand why we can’t be friends just because of what is happening 2,000 miles away”.
It was shocking to see the institutional ignorance of the beliefs and traditions of our two great religions. I always felt that the issue of antisemitism on campus did not emanate solely from the students. It also came from the laissez-faire attitude of the faculty. From the chancellors and vice-chancellors to the professors, lecturers and administrators, many of whom were worse than indifferent, it is they who permitted antisemitism, and indeed Islamophobia, to fester unchecked.
Why should it be permitted? Why should my or anyone else’s grandchildren be subjected to abuse and violence merely because of their birth? Just imagine what would happen if we were to substitute the word “Jewish” with the word “black”, “gay” or “trans”. There would be a national outcry. Will we now see Indian and Pakistani students being harangued on campus for what is happening in Kashmir? There is no need to answer that question, but, for the record, the answer is no.
What is happening to Jewish students is pure and simple antisemitism. How should we deal with this problem? Yes, through more interchange, as we had at the Coexistence Trust, but clearly that is not enough. University leaders need to be cajoled into changing their lazy indifference and reminded that they have a duty of care to all students. Why should faculties be allowed to permit casual and not so casual racism against the Jewish community when they would fight tooth and nail to protect other groups?
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Cryer, for securing this debate. I declare an interest as a past trustee for the Council of Christians and Jews—the CCJ—a wonderful interfaith organisation established by the then Archbishop of Canterbury and the Chief Rabbi in 1942, as the tragedy of the Holocaust unfolded.
A core part of the CCJ’s work is on campus. Through its campus leadership program, which is currently training 12 students across seven UK universities, the CCJ is empowering Jewish, Christian and students of other faiths to be the interfaith leaders of tomorrow. Since its launch in 2016, more than 80 students have been trained by the CCJ to stand up to antisemitism and Islamophobia, and, crucially, to conduct balanced and mutually respectful debates. I applaud them for their courage in what is clearly an increasingly febrile and hostile climate.
I commend the Union of Jewish Students on its work, and those students who contributed testimonies to the StandWithUs UK report, already mentioned by other noble Lords. I commend them for their courage and for their admirable forbearance in the face of, at best, institutional indifference and, at worst, outright racism. I commend them for standing up for British values: the values of tolerance, interfaith dialogue and free speech.
Those values are absent from the appalling and shocking treatment meted out to those cited in the StandWithUs report. What is not absent is the vile, divisive, un-British poison of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood from whence they came, which, like the IRGC, as we have already heard earlier today, bizarrely remain unproscribed in the UK. Hamas may not be winning the war in Gaza, but this report shows that their viciously distorted and fundamentally racist propaganda is helping them win the battle of ideas and the battle for hearts and minds on our campuses.
I fear that we are letting them do this. The law is being broken, as we have already heard, in plain sight, while the authorities—the universities, the police, the Government—might as well shrug their shoulders and wring their hands. Surely this report should leave us all holding our heads in our hands.
I close with one question for the Minister: unless urgent action is taken, how long does she think it will be before one of our students is killed for the crime of being Jewish?
Lord Walney (CB)
We have heard many harrowing accounts today. Of course antisemitism has existed for millennia, long before the Hamas atrocities on 7 October, and it is a privilege to be in the presence today of so many people who have literally dedicated their lives, and have had to do so, to fight antisemitism.
I add my praise, love and respect for the Union of Jewish Students. It was amazing to work with those students back in the day when, among the many things they were doing, they supported one particularly talented young student to be elected on to the block of 12, I think it was—my noble friend Lady Berger, who sits on these Benches today. The Union of Jewish Students clearly has an even harder job today, given what is happening.
Of course antisemitism existed long before Hamas’s atrocities, but it is deeply disturbing that the extremist ideology of those hateful terrorists has been seemingly so willingly adopted by many students at our country’s universities. The examples of antisemitism identified in today’s report by StandWithUs UK are notable both for their volume and for their consistency. I will briefly share a couple more examples.
A student at Queen Mary University of London was shouted out as they walked past the library; in front of campus security, students filmed themselves as they yelled,
“There’s a Zionist there, so you need to shout as loud as possible”.
An Israeli flag was burned at a student event arranged by Jewish and Israeli societies that was supposed to be a moment of solidarity and celebration for young adults traumatised by the events of 7 October; it was turned into the opposite of that.
As others have said, the antisemitism by university staff is the most shocking thing here. Consider the example of the professor at the University of Leeds who posted on their personal social media account that the local Jewish society is “virulently Zionist” and declared that there is
“no space for Zionists on campus, not now or ever”.
I believe that no disciplinary action, according to the report, was taken after the posts had been deleted. Can you imagine that happening if it had been a white supremacist who had revealed themselves? Of course it would not happen, but it slips by, and university life is allowed to go on as if nothing has happened.
When university administrators fail to enforce adequate sanctions and some university staff even feel emboldened to participate in this festival of hate, is it any surprise that anti-Jewish racism and intolerance have spread so widely among the student body? I am afraid that many Jews feel that they are being sent the unmistakable message, “You are not welcome here on campus”, and it is hard not to escape the echoes of a period in the 1930s that led to the darkest moment in human history.
I implore the Government to read carefully the recommendations in the StandWithUs UK report and those that have been made over the years by the Antisemitism Policy Trust, which has been dedicated in this area for many years. As a democracy founded on the principles of equality and freedom of religion, we can ill-afford to allow this crisis to continue.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I will quickly soon turn to the topic of this vital debate, for which I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cryer, but I hope that noble Lords will indulge me if I make reference to our late colleague Lord Etherton, whose sad death at only 73 was announced today by the Lord Speaker.
Joshua Rozenberg reports that, when Lord Etherton gave a lecture at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem,
“in confident, fluent Hebrew, he told the story of his grandparents, arriving in the East End of London from the pale of settlement in Russia during the early years of the 20th century only to find more antisemitism in Britain. ‘My paternal great-uncle persuaded his parents to change the family name,’ he said. ‘And so Schliama Borrenstein became Seddon Llewellyn Delroy Ryan Etherton.’”—
at least it was not Del Boy.
“His great-grandparents, he added, would have been dumbfounded to see him delivering a lecture in Israel as the second most senior judge of England and Wales”.
So we have had some great progress in our country and society, which actually makes it even more shocking that, following the horrendous terrorist attack on 7 October perpetrated against Israeli victims by Hamas, a dramatic further increase in antisemitic incidents was seen in the UK as well as elsewhere. We have heard the figures tonight given by the noble Lord, Lord Cryer, and others, recorded by the Union of Jewish Students, the Community Security Trust and the report today from StandWithUs UK—all of them very valuable.
Some of the antisemitic behaviour was associated with pro-Palestinian marches, with one of the most common forms of antisemitic harassment being students experiencing intimidation around protest events on campus. Expressions of support for Hamas and other proscribed terror organisations have been routine, with students being told, “Hamas had their reasons”, “If I was Palestinian, I would join Hamas”, and, “There is no space for Zionists on campus, not now, not ever”. Some were even told, “Your people should not be alive” —I think that by “your people” they did not mean Israelis but Jews.
There has been some criticism of the definition and examples of antisemitism produced by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. The Jerusalem declaration was drafted in response, with the assertion that because the IHRA definition was
“unclear in key respects and widely open to different interpretations, it has caused confusion and generated controversy, hence weakening the fight against antisemitism”.
That declaration, which has academics in UK universities as signatories, asserts that neither
“Criticizing or opposing Zionism as a form of nationalism”
nor supporting
“arrangements that accord full equality to all inhabitants ‘between the river and the sea’”,
are antisemitic. That is already arguable, but when marchers shout, “From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free”, this is not some calm academic dialogue about constitutional arrangements; it is an intimidating call for the destruction of the State of Israel.
The IHRA definition stresses that
“criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”,
giving ample scope for criticism of any current Government or their actions. The bottom line is that freedom of expression is not a justification for harassment and that all points of view should be able to be expressed even when there is strong political disagreement relating to Israel and the Middle East.
Can the Minister say whether her discussions with vice-chancellors will result in serious and determined action to eradicate antisemitism on campuses while championing academic freedom—including in discussing Israel, the Middle East and Gaza, which I believe is absolutely possible?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, if you were a student attending Bristol University on 20 March this year—I pick a date more or less at random—you would have had the usual cornucopia of choices as to how to spend your evening. These were just a few of your options. You could have attended the French society’s games night and pub crawl, meeting at the Steam pub at 7 pm. The Christian union was holding a prayer hour at the Bristol International Student Centre and then its annual general meeting at Alma church at 6 pm. The Jewish society was holding a film screening at 6.30 pm at the JSoc house. However, unless you knew where that is, you would not have known where to go. That is because addresses for the meetings of the Jewish society, unlike those of other societies and groups, are not publicised in advance. You will not find the address on the website of the student union or on Instagram, as you would all the other locations. Instead, to get the address of the Jewish society meeting, you would need be on a private, by invitation-only WhatsApp group. It is private so that the members of the Jewish society know who is coming. That is not because they are doing anything nefarious—they were watching a film—but simply because they want to be safe. Yes, this is life as a Jewish student at our universities in 2025—addresses for meetings passed around on a need-to-know basis.
I have seen that done before when I was at university, but not at the university I attended. I saw it when I travelled as a student to visit Jewish students and dissidents—they were called refuseniks—in the former Soviet Union. They too passed around the addresses of where they were going to meet on a need-to-know basis—Moscow University 1988, Bristol University 2025.
While I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cryer, for initiating this debate with a very fine speech—we have heard many good speeches—I am afraid that we have made many of these points before. Here we are again, with the situation getting worse and not better. I know that we have heard these points before because my first speech in this House as a Minister was in Grand Committee replying to a debate on the same topic. While on one footing it is better that we are now doing it in the Chamber and not in Grand Committee, I would far rather that we did not need to have the debate at all.
As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, we do need this debate because, as today’s StandWithUs report makes clear, the position faced by Jewish students at UK universities is getting worse, not better. The University Jewish Chaplaincy provides excellent pastoral care, and the Union of Jewish Students does fantastic work, but they are literally on the front line, day in, day out.
When a Jewish student sees a banner, “No Zionists on campus”, she will read it as “No Jews on campus”, because the overwhelming majority of Jews in this country, and therefore the overwhelming majority of Jewish students, are Zionist: they believe, as I do, in the right of Jewish self-determination, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, reminded us, is the only thing that Zionism actually means. When Jewish students have to run the gauntlet of a protest camp, as they did at Cambridge, and they see the university authorities doing absolutely nothing for far too long, they will draw the obvious conclusion.
If noble Lords will allow me a very short digression, what really annoyed me about that protest camp at Cambridge was the sheer ignorance on display. They thought they were being clever by having a big sign in Hebrew and English with the famous words from Deuteronomy, chapter 16, verse 20:
“Justice, justice thou shalt pursue”.
They obviously did not read the second half of the same verse. It carries on:
“that you may live and possess the land”—
we all know what land is being referred to—
“which the Lord your God is giving you”.
Let me be clear: denying Jewish students the right publicly to identify as Zionists, when, for many, Zionism is a core part of their Jewish identity, is a form of religious and cultural discrimination. It is also probably illegal, but this should not be a question of legal compulsion or demanding special treatment. I would simply like to see a day when Jewish societies can publicise the addresses for their meetings in the same way that everyone else does. It boils down to this: a university where Jewish students are not welcome, or are made to feel that they are not, is an institution that has entirely forfeited its right to call itself a university.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, may I apologise for not having mentioned my interest as a member of the UJS advisory council? I am sorry; I should have done so.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Cryer for securing this important debate and, in so doing, bringing the attention of this House back to the critical issue of antisemitism on university campuses. As others have referenced, the Community Security Trust report, Campus Antisemitism in Britain 2022-2024, published at the end of last year, sets out the scale of this issue within higher education. Let me say very clearly that this Government utterly condemn antisemitism in the strongest possible terms. More importantly, we are actively taking steps to prevent and tackle it at university, as in all parts of society.
In setting the context for that work, it is right that I take this opportunity, as others have in this debate, to recognise the organisations that play such a crucial role in supporting our Jewish students across the country. The Community Security Trust, providing essential security advice, monitors antisemitic incidents and collaborates with universities to ensure a safe campus environment. Its invaluable, if shocking and disturbing, data helps us understand the evolving picture of antisemitism as it affects not only students at university but Jewish communities up and down the country and across the world.
As several noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, made clear, the context in which we speak of antisemitism on university campuses is one of antisemitism more broadly across our communities. That is why the £72 million made available over the coming years to the Community Security Trust—as it has been in recent years, including when I was home Secretary—is an important contribution to the vital work that CST does in safeguarding our community sites.
As others have done, I pay tribute to the Union of Jewish Students for tirelessly advocating for Jewish students’ interests and ensuring that their voices are heard. My noble friend Lord Mann rightly focused on its enormous contribution. Although I am slightly older in my period of student politics, I understand and remember the enormous significance of the UJS. I am sure that it is ably supported not only by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, but by my noble friend Lady Berger, who, more than many people in this Chamber, understands the personal impact of antisemitic abuse.
The University Jewish Chaplaincy, which I was able to meet at a reception in Portcullis House, also offers spiritual guidance, pastoral care and a sense of community, providing essential well-being support.
Many noble Lords have referenced the StandWithUs report today. I was fortunate to be able to attend the event organised by my noble friend Lord Turnberg and hear directly the testimony from those students. It was both shocking and affecting, reflected as it is today in this report.
I was fortunate to be able to join the Friday night dinner of the Birmingham University Jewish Society. Its members told me that it was the largest in the country, where, as my noble friend Lady Berger outlined, there is an emphasis on Jewish life as much as there is on Jewish strife. I welcomed and enjoyed their hospitality and education. Interestingly, that was an interfaith night, in which they had successfully brought together students from across the university.
There can be no doubt that the terrorist attacks on Israel on 7 October 2023 acted as a catalyst for an unprecedented increase in appalling antisemitic incidents on campuses. Those incidents, including calls for violence against Jewish people and Holocaust denial, are utterly unacceptable and must be addressed decisively. We are committed to ensuring that universities take concerted action to prevent and tackle antisemitism and all other forms of harassment. As noble Lords have emphasised, that action needs to be led from the very top of our universities.
To emphasise the significance of that, the Office for Students introduced a new registration condition in July 2024 that will come into force on 1 August this year. The new condition is designed to trigger a cultural shift in attitudes and behaviours across the higher education sector. It will establish, among other things, regulatory requirements around training, reporting mechanisms and the provision of support. I was taken by the testimony that I heard from students that they felt that there was no appropriate mechanism to report their concerns, and suitable action was not taken by the leadership of their universities. This condition will require universities to develop the capability and resource capacity to implement the provisions, and the OfS will be able to take action against providers where there is or has been a breach of the condition, including, as several noble Lords have asked for, the ability to fine universities where they fail to take this issue seriously.
I should highlight, as others have done, the £7 million that the Government have allocated to tackling antisemitism in education. Of that amount, £500,000 has already been awarded to the University Jewish Chaplaincy to support student welfare on university campuses.
On the work in higher education, increasing the confidence and capability of university staff to recognise and tackle antisemitism is, as we know, critical to improving the experience of Jewish students on campus. That is why a key part of the tackling antisemitism in education procurement is focused on finding suppliers to deliver training and resources for key university staff, including campus security and student union staff. Training will also support staff in facilitating difficult discussions and tolerant debate between students on the Israel-Palestine conflict, as well as tools to support students in spotting and challenging mis- and disinformation, such as antisemitic conspiracy theories.
In addition, we are launching an innovation fund, providing opportunities for more creative methods to tackle antisemitism in universities, schools and colleges. This could include, for example, opportunities to strengthen students’ critical thinking and media literacy skills, as well as student-facing workshops on tolerant debate and interfaith collaboration to tackle antisemitism. I understand the impatience of noble Lords. An announcement regarding the outcome of the procurement and the launch of the innovation fund will be made as soon as possible.
On the issue of handling encampments, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, and others, I know that noble Lords have expressed concern about encampments. I wholly understand the chilling and frightening impact on Jewish students of the way in which those encampments developed on campuses. So far this academic year, relatively few encampments have been established. I believe that universities have learned from last year’s experiences how to de-escalate tensions where possible and, where that does not work, to take formal measures to resolve the situation. A number of universities, including Birmingham and Nottingham, took legal action to remove unauthorised encampments that were causing major disruption to teaching and learning. I think that was important, and their learning was important for other universities. Nevertheless, we remain vigilant, and are particularly keen to ensure that any future protests do not disrupt student life and cause fear and concern in the way that happened in places last year.
Several noble Lords raised the issue of free speech. Let me be clear: higher education must be a space for robust discussion, intellectual rigour and exposure to new ideas, but that in no way can excuse a failure to act on antisemitism. It was with respect to some elements of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, particularly in relation to the tort, where concern was expressed to us, including by Jewish students, that the impact might be to enable or to lead some higher education providers unduly to prioritise protecting speech that is hateful or degrading over the interests of those who are at risk of being harassed and intimidated. That was part of the reason why we paused the Act. I think the new way in which we are now delivering that Act will help to alleviate some of those issues.
Let me be clear that Holocaust denial, while not unlawful, is, nevertheless, not protected speech. I would most certainly not expect to see anybody expressing Holocaust denial having a place on our campuses. The Act does not protect unlawful speech, including some of the horrifying harassment, discrimination and antisemitic abuse we have seen on campus.
On Hamas, of course Hamas is a terrorist organisation. Support for it is criminal, and action should be taken where that occurs.
On Holocaust education, a point raised by my noble friend Lord Cryer, the Holocaust is the only historic event that is compulsory in the current national curriculum for history at key stage 3. It will remain a compulsory topic in the reformed national curriculum. We support it by funding teachers’ professional development. We made an additional £2 million available, committed in the 2024 Autumn Budget, for Holocaust remembrance and education.
On the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition, the Government are unequivocal in their backing of that definition of antisemitism.
Finally, in closing this debate, I think it important to recognise the efforts that have been made to foster cohesion on campuses across the country, including by university vice-chancellors and their staff, working closely with Jewish societies and the Union of Jewish Students. But, of course, there is more to do and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education is looking forward to hosting a round table with leading vice-chancellors to discuss what more can be done, collectively and at institutional level, to make this happen. We will continue to work closely with and to challenge university authorities and others to ensure that we create a campus culture that upholds the values of tolerance and respect for all.