Lords Chamber

Monday 18th May 2026

(began 3 weeks, 2 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:36
14:38
14:38
14:38
None Portrait Business of the House
-

It is, though unlikely if a member from a particular bench ask a question, that we will get back to that bench before other supplementary questions have come from around the House. So, for example, today, the first question is from my noble friend Baroness Nargund Arthur Noble. Ladies asked her question. Supplementary question, and it has been answered, will move around to other benches, and I would not normally expect another Labour member to ask a question until we have heard from the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, the crossbenchers and maybe also the bishops benches.

I hope that is clear and of assistance to the House. My only intention of standing at this despatch box, making these contributions on a regular basis is for Question Time to be more effective, for it to provide greater scrutiny and allow more members of the House to participate in this most important part of our business. I hope all noble Lords will bear these remarks in mind when participates today and in the days ahead. I also draw the attention of the House to the letter sent around by the usual channels on the day of the King's Speech.

This letter makes clear that this is a self-regulating house. We all individually need to show self-restraint and apply some self-regulation to our own conduct in this House. As I have said before, if we follow the advice and guidance as set out in the companion, we will not go far wrong. The companion is the agreed will of the House, which enables us to conduct our business efficiently and effectively with courtesy and respect, and at Question time ask questions and have them answered.
14:40
14:40
14:40
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:49
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:59
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:22
None Portrait Debate on the Address: Justice, home affairs and the union
-

>> >> My

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords My Lords. My Lords. Baroness My Lords. Baroness Levitt.
15:23
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt (Labour)
-
-
>> My Lords. Baroness Levitt. >> My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. It's a privilege. To open. This debate on the government's plans for Home affairs, the justice plans for Home affairs, the justice system and the Union. Let me start by expressing my gratitude to His Majesty for delivering the most gracious speech. And I also want to say at the outset that in the 15 months since I came into your Lordships house, I've been awed by the amount of expertise, experience, and wisdom to be found here, on the subject of which I am sure that many of your Lordships will have noted that the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, is to make his valedictory speech today, after 16 years in your Lordships House.

My Lords, we shall miss him. His contributions, like his books, have always been learned, penetrative and eloquent, and he's also never been afraid to tell us straight what he thinks. To have leading political historians in this House has added knowledge and quality to our debates. Because he's already said this publicly. I'm sure he will not mind me referring to the fact that he suffers from Parkinson's disease, because I wanted to say to him that in fact, so does my own father.

And he was 90 last weekend and he's going strong. I'm sure your Lordships will all join me in wishing the noble Lord good health, long life and continued happiness. I also look forward to the maiden speeches of the noble Lord Lord Case and the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich. My Lords, in opening this debate, I have two themes the protection of the public and rebuilding trust in our public institutions. We will do this at a national level, but we will also work with the newly formed devolved governments because people in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and here in England expect to see their governments working together to deliver for them.

My Lords all of us long for the sunlit uplands, where the economy is so strong that there is money to pay for everything that we want and deserve. And whilst I, as a proud member of this Labour government, firmly believe that we are on the right path to greater economic strength, we all have to accept that at the moment we cannot afford everything that we want to do and so hard choices have to be made. But the lodestar for this government is these two principles fairness and opportunity for all people across the United Kingdom.

And so I start with the protection of the public, because keeping our citizens safe is the most fundamental duty of all. This government has two objectives to ensure that law enforcement bodies have the tools to tackle emerging dangers, whilst also maintaining the trust and confidence of the communities which they serve. So this government is introducing the biggest reform to policing in two centuries, designed to do three things to respond to rapidly changing threats. Give confidence at a local level that community's priorities are listened to and acted upon, and increase democratic accountability.

My Lords, crime is evolving fast. Sophisticated criminal gangs are working both here and internationally, smuggling drugs and trafficking people into this country, and the online world is making it easier than ever for sexual abusers and online fraudsters to operate. 90% of crime today has a digital element, and fraud now makes up nearly half of all crime. We no longer live in the world of Dixon of Dock Green, which was a reference I knew I could make safely in your Lordships house.

When I said it to my children, I got rather a blank stare, but that really rather makes the point for me. Policing must evolve to tackle modern realities. The Police Reform Bill will restore trust in policing. It will strengthen local policing by driving down waste, cutting bureaucracy, empowering officers in their communities and equipping forces with the technology and skills they need to keep pace with crime as it evolves. We are creating the National Police Service, which will provide a unified response to the most serious crimes, set, stronger national policing standards and ensure that there is more consistency in how the police go about their work.

My Lords. Whilst operational independence remains a crucial cornerstone of modern policing, this bill will ensure that there is greater accountability to the public through their elected representatives. In order to achieve this, the Home Secretary will set national priorities, improving police performance and ensuring standards are met across the country. In addition, as part of protecting the public, we must keep up with modern dangers and that is why the most gracious speech also included proposals to tackle two of the greatest emerging threats those posed by hostile states as well as by individuals.

The Tackling State Threats Bill creates a powerful new tool to disrupt and deter the activities of state linked entities and those acting in concert with them, and this follows a recommendation made by the independent reviewer. Hostile states sponsor terrorism and create insecurity. So with this bill, we will create a new power for the Secretary of State directly to address organisations that are engaged in state state linked threats with new criminal sanctions for those organisations. But it is not just other countries that represent an evolving threat.

We also need stronger protections against individuals who become fixated with violence and can and do cause serious, real world harm. The Southport attack in July of 2024 was a stark reminder of why this is needed. We must protect the public from those who plan to commit a mass casualty attack, even if they do not have an ideological motive. So we will introduce a national security Bill with measures to tackle online extreme violence, because we all know that exposure to the most graphic and extreme violent material can escalate to planning and conducting an attack.

So this bill will criminalise the creation and sharing of extreme violent violence content, and give law enforcement updated powers to take down cyber criminals, including introducing a cybercrime risk order. And it will criminalise the planning of a mass casualty attack such as the Southport attacks. I turn to my second subject confidence in our public institutions. This government is bringing forward several measures to rebuild that trust, to make sure that systems work as they should, and to restore fairness and predictability.

And I start with a subject close to my own heart, our criminal justice system, whether your Lordships belong to a particular political grouping or to none, I think we can all agree on this. Our criminal justice system is struggling. We might disagree about who is to blame, but we all know that things are not how they should be in a mature democracy. Grotesque delays in cases being tried, victims who feel that the system is weighted against them, guilty defendants gaming the system, and innocent defendants whose lives are ruined by the many months, if not years, waiting to be cleared, by which time they may well have lost their jobs, homes and families.

All these things are closely intertwined. The delays make it worthwhile for the guilty to string things out, which in turn makes victims feel that the system is broken. Today, the backlog of cases awaiting trial in the Crown Court is over 80,000 cases. Without action, that backlog will continue to rise beyond the point of recovery. So we must act, and we are implementing a package of reforms. The first element of our package is a record financial investment in the criminal justice system.

We are funding unlimited sitting days in the Crown Court this financial year. As many courts as the Lady Chief Justice can give us, we will fund. That's part of a record £2.78 billion settlement for the courts and tribunals this year, and it includes significant increases to legal aid in order to attract and retain the excellent lawyers upon whom the system depends. The second element is improving efficiency. We are working hard to give our response to the second part of the Leveson Report, but by way of example, there will be more blitz courts and we're making greater use of technology and artificial intelligence.

The third element of our package is to introduce modernising reforms, and we will do this through the return of the Courts and Tribunals Bill. My Lords, for reasons that I have to confess that I've been a bit mystified by this has attracted huge controversy, and the reason I'm mystified by it is this this government is only doing what pretty much every other government has done in the past, including conservative governments. And let me explain what I mean. It has always been the case that only 10% of criminal cases are dealt with in the Crown Court.

There are obvious reasons for this. Jury trial is much slower and much more expensive than the magistrates court, which is why every government reserves a jury trial for the most serious cases, and what is meant by the most serious cases changes over time. Let me give you a little illustration. Picture the scene on a sunny morning in 1971, a 23 year old barrister set off to the Birkenhead Court sessions to conduct his first jury trial. The name of that young man was Alex Carlile, known to this House as the Lord Carlile of Berriew, and as some of your Lordships know, my noble kinsmen, and in case your Lordships are wondering why I've embarked on this recounting of ancient history, the reason is this the offence for which his client was being tried was driving with excess alcohol.

It was a breathalyser case, and I think your Lordships will now have the point. We don't try breathalyser cases in the Crown Court anymore. They only go before the magistrates. And the reason for that? Well, I can do no better than to use the words of the late, great Gareth Williams QC, Lord Williams of Mostyn in 1999, speaking in your Lordships House when he was Minister of State in the Home Office, he said things are not set in stone. Your Lordships will remember the introduction of the breathalyser provisions and the right to trial by jury.

I remember that with perfect satisfaction and happiness, because it kept many of us going in south and west Wales for many years, running completely bogus defences. I can say this now about whether the policeman was wearing his cap and, if not, whether that constituted full uniform. Eventually, the right to elect trial in breathalyser cases was wholly removed and transferred to the magistracy. One cannot set these matters in stone. One must take a sensible balance and build in judicial safeguards.

And the party, which had removed the right of jury trial for these cases, was, of course, the party opposite. I do not say that to criticise them. I merely do it to make the point that that is what governments do in order to keep up with modern life. They just move the line as to which cases are tried in magistrates court, and which require the greater time and resources of judge and jury in the Crown Court. My Lords, we are a Labour government. We did not come into office and I did not come into your Lordships House to remove jury trial.

This is a sensible and proportionate response to the changing nature of criminal offences and the way in which they are prosecuted in the public interest, because the modelling is clear, investment and modernisation alone are not enough. We also need to reform. I turn now to the better and fairer immigration and asylum system that we promised, promised the British people. We will not hesitate to remove those with no right to be here and ensure our immigration rules are enforced.

But I also say this this Labour government will never shirk the responsibility of providing refugee status to those fleeing war and persecution, and we will continue to meet our international obligations whilst encouraging those who want to build a life in the UK to do so via safe and legal routes. What we see on our television screens unfolding in the English Channel is grotesque vulnerable adults and children being exploited and put in danger and it must stop. We've made a good start.

We've cut £1 billion from the asylum bill, and we've increased the return of illegal immigrants by 31% since coming into office. But, my Lords, it is absolutely clear that we cannot solve this by incremental measures alone. The task is to urgent and too big. So the Immigration and Asylum Bill will introduce the most significant changes to the immigration system in a generation. It will restore order and control by tightening the application of article eight, ensuring that family life means only the core family unit, and addressing the misuse of the modern slavery framework.

It will speed up the removal and deportation of illegal migrants and foreign criminals, as well as reducing the pull factors driving illegal migration. And we will create a new independent appeals body and a system that is fair, fast and commands public confidence, which will ensure the immediate forced removal of those who have exhausted all their appeals. We will ensure that refugees who do integrate, who contribute and play a full part in our society will be able to come off basic protection and settle more quickly.

These proposals will make our immigration system fair and fit for purpose, and allow us to focus on those who genuinely need support. My Lords a failure in accountability of those who serve or should serve. The public has also worn down public trust. His Majesty confirmed the carry over of two bills designed to right past wrongs. The first is fulfilling our manifesto commitment to get the public accountability law on the statute book. We are determined to deliver for the Hillsborough families after 37 long years, as well as the other victims of other tragedies where the state was at fault, including Infected Blood, Horizon and Grenfell.

The Bill will introduce a duty of candour, individual accountability and require honesty and frankness. When things go wrong, it will put powerful new obligations on public bodies and officials to help investigations to get to the truth. And it will make sure that there is parity of arms at inquests, representing the largest expansion of civil legal aid in a decade. Taken together, the measures in this Bill will give individual citizens real and meaningful ability to challenge the state. My Lords His Majesty also confirmed the return of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill.

This bill, too is designed to rebuild public trust as well as ensuring dignity for the families of victims. Many of those families have suffered so much down the years and simply want answers about what happened to their family members killed in the Troubles. So we will reform the current system of addressing the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland. It includes measures to enhance next of kin participation, safeguard witnesses including our veterans, and bolster confidence in the Reformed Legacy Commission. This is a proportionate and workable approach to addressing this dark period in our history.

My Lords, I know that in the best traditions of your Lordships House, the debate to follow will allow for a full and interesting discussion of this government's agenda. And may I also say that I would welcome discussion with any of your Lordships, from whichever party or group, about any or all of these plans. This government is really keen to draw upon the experience and wisdom in this House, about which I spoke at the beginning of this speech, and where we can achieve consensus, we will do so.

My Lords, the most gracious speech set out this government's approach to keeping the public safe and restoring trust. We are determined that by doing so, all.
15:39
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Portrait Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative)
-
-
Hear, hear. My Lords, I'm. >> Hear, hear. My Lords, I'm. >> Grateful to the noble Baroness. >> The Minister, for her speech for outlining the government's legislative programme for the new session in the area of Justice and Home Affairs. I was particularly impressed, if I may say respectfully, that her speech managed both to defend her husband and to revive Dixon of Dock Green, a combination not often encountered in modern criminal justice policy. Like the noble Lady, the Minister. I also look forward to the maiden speeches from the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, whose route to high office in the church was assured when she was ordained in Liverpool, and also, of course, to the maiden speech of the noble Lord Lord Case, whose route to Cabinet Secretary was assured when he had.

As his doctoral supervisor, I understand the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy of Limpsfield, and like the noble Lady, the Minister, I also pay tribute to the noble Lord in. What I understand is to be his valedictory speech. He is one of the houses greatest historians and constitutionalists. His wisdom and scholarship have enriched our political life for many years. According to Wikipedia, which might be accurate on this point, at least when created a life peer, he said, and I quote, I hope I can help the House of Lords a bit on constitutional matters.

I'll certainly give it my best shot. My Lords, I think I speak for the whole House when I say that there are few, if any, better shots. My Lords, I'm going to focus on the justice and constitutional aspects of the programme, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower will have more to say about the Home Office and immigration matters before turning to the substance. I cannot help observing that the Gracious Speech is admirably confident in declaring what His Majesty's Government will do in current political circumstances.

A little more conditional drafting might have been prudent. One is tempted to suggest that May rather than will is currently the operative auxiliary verb. Because so much of the programme before us bears the unmistakeable imprint of the current Prime Minister's constitutional philosophy, although I doubt those words have ever crossed his own lips. It is an approach to policy and political life in which the instinctive answer to almost every social problem is not stronger institutions, stronger families, stronger civic culture or greater democratic resilience, but instead another statutory duty, another regulator, another criminal offence, another extension of state authority.

This government in its programme speaks the language of moderation and pragmatism, but beneath it lies an unmistakeably, loyally belief that society can be reordered from Whitehall by legislative design and managed compliance. It is a vision in which politics becomes litigation by other means, and in which the state readily and steadily and constantly expands, while responsibility is transferred upwards from citizens and communities to officials, regulators and courts. But my Lords, before turning to the matters which do divide us, I first want to turn to a matter which ought to unite us.

His Majesty chose to address anti-Semitism in, I think, the second or third paragraph of the gracious speech, and with respect. He was right to do so, because the fight against anti-Semitism goes directly to the themes of justice, public order and national cohesion which underpin this debate. My Lords, I am sure the whole House joins me in recording our gratitude to His Majesty for his visit to Golders Green last Thursday. It demonstrated moral leadership, solidarity and an understanding that the rise in anti-Semitism is not some marginal or community based concern, but a direct challenge to the values and cohesion of this country.

And that challenge is becoming increasingly visible on our streets. On Saturday afternoon, London witnessed two very different marches. 1st March was under the banner of Palestinian activism. The other was addressed by Tommy Robinson. But there was one deeply disturbing point of convergence between them. At the 1st March, a banner declared end Zionist control of the UK government. At the 2nd March, a banner demanded end Zionist occupation of Britain. Different crowds, different political tribes, but the same ancient poison, the same conspiracy theory, the same obsessive belief that Jews or Zionists used as a euphemism, secretly control governments, societies and nations.

The far left and the far right now increasingly resemble two mirrors facing one another, reflecting the same hatred back and forth in slightly different language. One wraps it in the rhetoric of anti-imperialism, the other in the rhetoric of nationalism and racial grievance. But beneath both lies precisely the same anti-Semitic conspiracy theory and the overnight news my Lords is no better. Police are investigating another violent physical attack in Golders Green. In the early hours of this morning. The Metropolitan Police have asked the organisers of the Nova Festival exhibition to take down the main sign and to keep the location a secret, not a censorship but a protective measure.

The fact that an exhibition commemorating young people murdered at a music festival should require covert policing and counter-terrorism precautions before it can safely open in London in 2026, is a disturbing reflection of the climate we face in Britain today. His Majesty the King has, as I said, shown leadership and moral clarity. We now look to the government to show leadership and legislative clarity, and that means moving urgently to proscribe the IRGC in full. Last Thursday, in the other place, the security Minister said the government would bring forward fast track legislation quotes in the coming weeks.

And I hope the noble Lord, the Minister, will be able to clarify later tonight precisely when the government intends to bring this legislation before Parliament and whether it is intended to commence the Bill here or in the other place. My Lords, at the centre of the government's programme for justice reform is the Courts Modernisation Bill. We have been consistently told that these measures are necessary to tackle court backlog and restore confidence in the criminal justice system. Now we on these benches do not dispute the seriousness of the backlog.

Victims are waiting years for justice and defendants are left in limbo. There is a real risk that cases collapse under the weight of delay. But my Lords, the fact that a problem is serious is no justification for some of the alarming solutions proposed. A jury trial should not be viewed as an administrative inconvenience. It is a central safeguard of liberty in our constitutional order, and the right to be judged by one's peers has endured precisely because it protects the individual from the unchecked power of the state.

It commands public confidence in a way that no technocratic reform or efficiency drive ever can or ever will. And indeed, the strongest arguments in favour of jury trial have come from the government. The Prime Minister, in his previous incarnation as the Director of Public Prosecutions, said, and I quote, the right to trial by jury is an important factor in the delicate balance between the power of the state and the freedom of the individual. The further it is restricted, the greater the imbalance.

Likewise, in his 2017 review into racial bias in the criminal justice system, the current Lord Chancellor described juries as, quote, the only stage without racial bias. He recognised that juries are not obstacles to justice, but defenders of fairness and equality under the law, and one point which the noble Lady the Minister didn't deal with, but I would ask the government to think about, is this we have a judiciary in this country of the highest quality, but they are not reflective of the society in which we live at the moment.

We, so to speak, get away with it in our criminal justice system, because juries are representative. If you do away with juries and your and defendants walk in and they see a judge and perhaps two magistrates who don't look like them, who don't come from where they come from, who don't speak like them, who don't share the same life experiences. That is going to lead to demands for different ways of appointing our judges, and perhaps for radical reform of our judiciary.

And I do gently ask the government to think about this very carefully. We might not get what we wish for these same figures. The Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor, who in the past were so confident in the strength of the jury system, now ask us to accept that juries have become barriers to efficiency. And under this government, therefore, this proposal reflects not only a change of policy but a collapse in principle. And let me take on the point that the noble Lady, the Baroness, the lady the Minister, mentioned about the change of offences which go to magistrates and juries.

And, of course, there have been changes over the years. But we are talking here about serious cases under these reforms, offences which attract sentences of up to three years imprisonment may be heard without a jury. Many sexual assault cases will fall within scope. Fraud and theft cases may be heard by a judge alone. Those. If I may pick up the noble Ladies phrase, those are among. I would suggest the most serious cases and for the government to suggest that these offences no longer warrant.

The constitutional safeguard of jury trial is a profound shift in the balance between citizen and state, and reflects a stripping away of individual citizen's rights. That is particularly the case because one of the most alarming elements of the bill is its retrospective effect, its impact on those already waiting jury trial defendants who have already exercised their lawful right to elect Crown Court trial, now find that right about to be removed, according to the government's bill, after the fact, Parliament is being asked to change the rules midway through the process for individuals who made their decisions based on the law, as it stood at the time, that is unfair, and it will be seen throughout the country as profoundly unfair.

Perhaps the most remarkable feature of this debate is that the evidence which the noble Lady, the Minister, didn't really touch on, increasingly points against the government's case. Last week, the Chief executive of His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service confirmed that cases are being resolved at a faster rate than forecast because sitting days have increased and courts are operating more effectively, lifting the cap on judicial sitting days, which the government should have done when it came into office, and not only after the Lady Chief Justice asked for it, has reduced and begun to reduce backlogs in key regions across England and Wales.

Of course, we need more judges. Of course we need more of it. We also need more courts actually capable of sitting. Last week, 10% of courts capable of sitting did not sit. Because of such problems with the court. Are are a service and the way the courts have been maintained, these are long running problems. These are long running problems. But the answer is not to abolish juries. The answer is to deal with the criminal justice system. And there is a fundamental lack of legislative coherence at the heart of the government's policy.

When justifying these reforms, the Lord Chancellor claimed that defendants are gaming the system. He said by electing Crown Court trials for relatively minor offences, the Minister for courts in the other place asked do we think. She said, do we think that someone who has stolen a bottle of whisky from a mini-mart should receive the right to trial by jury? Well, I can answer that question for the Minister. Yes. Her own government thinks that because the Government's Crime and Policing Act, which received Royal Assent just a matter of weeks ago, restored low value shoplifting offences to the ordinary either way regime, thereby preserving the defendant's right for low level shoplifting offences to a trial by jury in the Crown Court.

So why were these low level shoplifting offences sufficiently serious to justify a jury on an either way offence, whereas now we are told that they are so minor that jury trial should be removed. What makes all of this, of course, especially troubling is that the basis for this policy has fundamentally changed. When it was introduced, we were told this is necessary to reduce the backlog. It was all about efficiency and the Criminal Bar Association, the Law Society, the Bar Council said, where's the modelling? Where is the modelling? And the modelling wasn't there.

And now, of course, we're told something completely different. We're told it's a matter of principle. This is what was this what Sarah Sackman told the House of Commons even if there's no backlog, this is what the government is going to do. It is no longer being advanced as an emergency administrative response to pressure on the courts. It is being advanced as a matter of constitutional principle. But if this really was a principled constitutional change to the relationship between citizen and state and between between accused and jury, between the executive and the administration of justice, why wasn't there a word about this in the government's manifesto? And indeed, even if the reason for it was to reduce the backlog, I have to tell the noble Lady, the Minister, when we sat on different sides, we were constantly being berated by what was then the opposition about the backlog.

The backlog wasn't a state secret. And so even if this is as an answer to the backlog, it still should have been in the Labour Party's manifesto. What has happened here is that this is an emergency response. I don't know whether it's come from number ten or from the Attorney General. I doubt, however, it will survive under any future Prime Minister. This matters. The electorate was given no indication whatsoever that a Labour government intended to dilute or curtail long standing rights to trial by jury.

Constitutional change in this country derives its legitimacy not merely from parliamentary arithmetic but from democratic consent. And it's precisely in circumstances such as these that your Lordships House has, I suggest, a particular constitutional duty not to frustrate government for the sake of opposition, but to require Ministers to justify profound constitutional change openly, candidly and before the electorate, rather than presenting it after the event as an inevitable technocratic necessity. The right to jury trial has endured for centuries because it protects the liberty of the citizen against the power of the state.

Once diminished, it will not easily be restored, and this House should therefore approach this element of the government's programme with the utmost caution, assuming, of course, my Lords, that the next Prime Minister, who might be with us in a matter of weeks, surely within a matter of months, does not conclude that Mr. Lammy's earlier instincts on these matters were rather sounder than his later ones, and to quietly leave these proposals where they belong, in what the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy has taught us is the long catalogue of constitutional mistakes wisely abandoned before they could do lasting harm.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. My Lords, I'll restrict my remarks to the government's remarks to the government's proposals for. Policing. At the start of the last session, many of us hoped for a serious reforming agenda after too many years in which our public services stagnated which our public services stagnated and in too many respects went backwards. Nowhere is this truer backwards. Nowhere is this truer than in policing. We therefore await details of the police reform Bill with great interest.

These benches agree with much of the direction set out in the recent White Paper, particularly the ambition to strengthen neighbourhood policing and address the workforce skills and training issues that are central to a successful modern police service. This bill provides a once in a generation opportunity for long overdue structural change. But will this ambition be matched by the necessary political will? I sincerely hope so. We're on our sixth Home Secretary in six years. Reshaping policing requires sustained commitment, not a revolving door of leadership.

Does the government have the focus to carry through bold reform when the Home Office is consumed by so many other priorities? The real test of this bill is whether it will improve investigations, deter law breaking and give witnesses and victims a better response when they turn to the police for help. It must also remain faithful to the core principles that have underpinned British policing for generations. Policing by consent, local accountability, impartiality and restraint that is the standard against which it will be measured.

Much attention is focussed on plans to merge forces and create a national police service, but structural reorganisation will mean little if we ignore the reality that frontline policing demand routinely exceeds capacity and policing is permanently struggling to cope. For too long, politicians have colluded in the fiction that all demand can be met. When everyone on the frontline knows that it cannot, the burden is pushed downwards to be absorbed by officers and staff, who must find their own ways to ration resources.

While Ministers avoid confronting those trade offs openly, this has to stop. We need an honest public conversation about what we're asking the police to do and what we're prepared to fund. Innumerable chief constables have told me their key ask is greater clarity about the role and mission of the police. New responsibilities must come with a funding to match, and when difficult choices are made, they must be owned collectively, not pushed down as now onto local forces.

The government wants a more active home office setting national priorities. But the question remains who will decide what is to be deprioritised? What politician will admit that without significant extra investment, some tasks can no longer be done to the same standard? Because if everything is prioritised, nothing will be. Can the Minister tell us how much of the investment for these new national structures is expected to come from savings within policing itself? The Liberal Democrats priority is to protect local policing.

We want every community to have guaranteed access to a police counter, not in buildings resembling Fort Knox that alienate the public. We want hubs in familiar places such as supermarkets and post offices, so that people can report a crime, get advice or pass on their concerns as they go about their daily lives. In too many areas, policing is verging on irrelevance, called upon only in the direst of emergencies. We must restore the principle of the police as part of the community, not a distant ancillary service.

We welcome the end of the failed Police and crime Commissioner experiment, but its replacement must be better, not just different. Shifting powers from one under scrutinised politician to another is no answer. Policing must be accountable to the communities it serves, and day to day operations must be protected from political interference. We must not drift towards a model where the police answer more to Whitehall than to local residents. Even as we sensibly reduce duplication and improve the sharing of data and intelligence in relation to police use of AI.

The belated promise of a world leading regulatory framework is very welcome. But in one of the most heavily surveyed democracies, it surely the minimum the public should expect. Regulation is still lagging far behind the technology, even as the Home Secretary urges forces to adopt AI at pace and scale public anxiety about a drift towards a surveillance society is real, and international experience shows how easily such tools can be misused. Troubling early signs of misuse here at home only reinforce that risk.

We will therefore press hard to ensure that any new legislation is genuinely robust and enforceable. Finally, my Lords, I share the concern about the increasing amount of ping pong. But
16:04
Baroness Doocey Portrait Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
when the only way to have sensible ideas properly considered is to press them repeatedly. Those of us who want to contribute constructively are left with little constructively are left with little choice. On the last policing bill, we repeatedly argued for proper we repeatedly argued for proper safeguards on facial recognition, only to be told time and time again only to be told time and time again that it was premature. Weeks later, the Home Office proposed those very safeguards. Well, I'm delighted the case was finally accepted, but I hope it does not become the pattern.

The public want us to work across party lines to improve public services, especially in the fight against crime. They do not want point scoring, they want visible improvements in policing and public safety. If the government are serious about reform, they must show it not only in what they say and how they legislate, but crucially, in how they listen and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords before the debate begins. I know your Lordships are looking forward to a full and fascinating debate. We have 73 speakers today and therefore the speakers today and therefore the advisory speaking time has been set by four at four minutes. And could by four at four minutes. And could I therefore encourage your Lordships to to stick to that, to give the later speakers a fair give the later speakers a fair crack of the whip, and in order that we can achieve a reasonable rising time? My Lords, I know that being a whip is not a path to popularity, but.

But I hope you'll forgive the whips if we feel the need to intervene in case people exceed the advisory time beyond what the House thinks is reasonable.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'd like to start. By welcoming the. Maiden speeches of welcoming the. Maiden speeches of my noble friend Lord Case and the Right Reverend, the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich. I'm not Edmundsbury and Ipswich. I'm not looking forward to the final valedictory speech of Lord Hennessy, valedictory speech of Lord Hennessy, not because I don't think it will lighten our spirits and we will enjoy his wisdom. But the fact. It enjoy his wisdom. But the fact. It is his final speech, and I, for one, will miss him very much.

From this chamber we heard earlier from Lord Wolfson of his. Endorsed by the House of the King's visit to Golders Green. I would also like to pick up another thing that the King has recently done, which is endow on Peter the. Sorry, the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy. The order of the Garter. For those of you who missed
16:07
Baroness Manningham-Buller Portrait Baroness Manningham-Buller (Crossbench)
-
-
it. So it isn't just this house who've noticed his qualities, but who've noticed his qualities, but beyond now, in the Gracious Speech I noticed 17 references to security. I noticed 17 references to security. And as the former head of the Security Service, more regularly known as MI5, I thought this was known as MI5, I thought this was quite a lot and I welcomed it. And I'm going to just say a few things I'm going to just say a few things about the current national security threat, largely derived from the current head of the service and a speech he made in October.

Russia attacking us on all fronts through cyber, through influence operations, exploring our underwater cables, drone attacks, sabotage murders, as well as conventional espionage. China cyber and influence operations. Politically seeking to exercise influence over the diaspora and stealing our technology. Iran sponsoring violence and terrorism and exacerbating anti-terrorism anti-Semitism at a substantial level. Additionally, al Qaeda and ISIS still were. And while we had hopes that Northern Ireland was peaceful, we had a car bomb there last month.

Since I retired, we also have extreme right wing terrorism. And the most frightening thing, I think, again, deriving from the October speech last year, 235 people arrested for terrorism in this country, 1 in 5 under 17. And I that just touch on the sadness I have that the the gracious speech did not refer to the under 16 and social media. I think also I would just like to say a little word in defence of prevent at this stage, often pilloried and obviously the most recent and notorious case of Southport.

But without it, the efforts to stop young people onto violent tracks where the terrorism or extremism is likely to be less successful. So tackle anti-Semitism. Growing threats from states, protect from extreme violence, improve cyber defences. I think the whole House would applaud those aims of the government, and we look forward to the legislative frameworks for doing that. Just one word of caution the solutions to these problems will not come from law, but from people, from men and women, from my organisation and the police and more broadly, in seeking to stop it.

Which brings me on to Hillsborough. Who can dispute that the public deserves trust from its public servants? Of course it does. Who can dispute that? The families concerned in this and other cases have suffered enormous anguish, not just from the event, but the aftermath and the treatment of it. Therefore, the concern I'm going to raise is difficult to raise because it sounds unsympathetic and Lord Lemos, I do apologise. I'm slightly going to go over four minutes. I know this is a bad precedent, but I need to say these things.

Nor do I think that my former service should not expect accountability and oversight. That is why we sought in parliamentary committee long before we got it. But there are three problems here, and the House will need to work hard to ensure that this bill does not compromise national security. The three problems very briefly, are, number one. This will take people off current work, plus lawyers to deal with the requests. How much, how extensive, hard to judge. But it will remove people from front line work.

The second problem is we get a great deal of intelligence from foreign services. They may be cautious about sharing that with us if it cannot be protected. And thirdly, human sources who work for us at risk of torture and death will be maybe, maybe with all depends on the detail. Reluctant to offer their services if they think their identity will be compromised. That said, I know this House will take this important legislation closely.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. My Lord, it's a pleasure to respond to His Majesty's gracious respond to His Majesty's gracious speech today, and I, too, look forward to the maiden speeches of forward to the maiden speeches of the noble Lord Lord Case and the Right reverend. My right reverend friend, the Bishop of Saint friend, the Bishop of Saint Edmundsbury and Ipswich. We face serious challenges at home and abroad, and I continue to pray for abroad, and I continue to pray for those who carry responsibilities of office as we seek to meet these
16:12
Lord Archbishop of Canterbury Portrait The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury (Bishops)
-
-
challenges together. At my installation at Canterbury Cathedral, I spoke about the Cathedral, I spoke about the presence and importance of hope. As a Christian, I believe that we have hope because we have a God who hope because we have a God who walks with us even when circumstances feel overwhelming. The work of integration has never been more urgent. We have witnessed a deeply concerning deterioration in inter-community relations. I therefore welcome the commitment in the Gracious Speech to do more to protect the Jewish communities following the recent appalling attacks, and in doing so, I wish to assure both Jewish and Muslim communities of my support as they face the unacceptable rise in hate crime, intimidation and hostility.

The Church of England has long held that the right, the right of all people to practice their faith without fear must be protected. We have also seen religious identity misused to intimidate and divide. Let us be clear to follow Jesus Christ is to love your neighbour as yourself, to love without exception, and to seek the flourishing of all. We must address the pressures facing people and communities today, while ensuring that systems for new arrivals are fair. We must undertake the harder task of bringing communities together, of making strangers neighbours and ensuring that all who reside here have both the opportunity and the responsibility to contribute to our shared life.

This becomes far more difficult if those refugees for whom we hold responsibility lack clarity about whether or when they may be required to return to their country of origin, we embed insecurity rather than stability when those seeking British citizenship are put through a decade long game of immigration, snakes and ladders. As human beings, we are naturally drawn to those who resemble us or reinforce our views, particularly in times of adversity and scarcity. Yet such instincts do not lead to a flourishing society.

Our debate on immigration can, however, be a source of hope. Hope that attitudes can change, that fairer societies are less divided, and that daily life, alongside people of different backgrounds, reduces fear and suspicion through its presence in every parish across England, the Church of England helps build communities where people know and care for one another. In doing so, it builds bridges and fosters relationships across lines of race, faith, class and more. In these acts of mutual care, the seeds of belonging are sown.

It is this patient work of integration and community building that policy making must support. My prayer is that we will see a renewal of hope in our country, a rejection of hatred and division, and turning towards one another. That is where true pride in our nation is found. My Lords, there is much more in the gracious speech that I cannot address today. However, I note the announcement of a Draft Conversion Practices Bill and remind the House that in 2017, the General Synod of the Church of England voted in favour of such a ban.

I urge the government to consult widely and wisely on this draft legislation so that meaningful progress can be made. Finally, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, for his service to this house and nation. He has been a source of wisdom, particularly on church state relations and our constitutional settlement. I thank him for placing his expertise at the service of this chamber, and I wish him a retirement.
16:16
Lord Reid of Cardowan Portrait Lord Reid of Cardowan (Labour)
-
-
May. >> My Lords, after a week of fixation on personalities and personal ambitions, we can now personal ambitions, we can now return. I almost said to sanity, to the process of policies and the political direction of the government. I'm sure that they will want to make sure that their policies do not hinder, but promote growth, and that the rewards of that growth go in a fair fashion to those who create the wealth that's the workers and the legitimate workers, not to those who choose not to work.

Having said that, I have two points to make about today's debate. The first is that I very much welcome the immigration and asylum bill. I am very reassured by the present Home Secretary. I have to say that I think she's probably the best for 20 years. But because she recognises the problems that have been caused by uncontrolled immigration, not least under Prime Minister Boris Johnson, but it has been for two decades. It has caused considerable alienation among the public, not because they're all racists, but because of increasing, endless lie, increasing demand on public services at a time when the provision of public services, particularly during austerity, has been reduced continually.

So the problem has not been created by Nigel Farage and reform. They have stepped into a vacuum where successive governments have allowed that to exist, and they've used it, but they didn't create it. And I think our present Home Secretary recognises that, and I therefore fully support her efforts to finally tackle some of the worst excesses of the problem. Secondly, I also welcome the National security Bill. I remind the House that we're approaching the 20th anniversary of the biggest terrorist attack in our history, the liquid bomb plot to murder several thousand people in aeroplanes across the Atlantic.

That plot was foiled by the vigilance of our security services under the leadership. I have to say, of Dame Manningham, Lady Manningham-Buller, and also I must mention Lord Jonathan Evans. It was a great thing that that was foiled, but there were unintended consequences of that because the terrorists haven't gone away. You know, as one famous terrorist once said, they adapted, they shaped new, simpler and less vulnerable methods of murder, less vulnerable to detection by individual acts of terrorism using low technology knives, guns, cars, arson, opportunistic attack on innocent civilians, and by targeting, in particular, the primary source of their hatred, the Jews, not just Israel.

Anybody who can should look at the suicide videos, which fortunately were not of no use. Ultimately, 20 years ago, it's the Jews, not just the state of Britain, the United Kingdom, or of Israel, but individual Jews here and throughout the world. That is driven, of course, by extreme Islamism. But it is now being succoured by the extreme right and increasingly the extreme left of politics shouldn't surprise us. Extreme left nationalism, extreme right, extreme socialism, the intrinsic element of the National Socialist Party of Deutschland.

When it's embedded like that. My final point within civil society, it cannot be countered by the security services alone. It can only be done by civil society. 80 years ago, it was defeated by the United Resolution of the whole British people, including their united civil resistance to the poison of anti-Semitism at home. We need that again and urgently.
16:21
Lord Garnier Portrait Lord Garnier (Conservative)
-
-
Yeah. >> Just intervene? >> I realise how important it is that everyone has a great deal to say in this debate. Unfortunately, say in this debate. Unfortunately, the advisory time is four minutes. There are a significant number of speakers. If everyone goes even half a minute or up to a minute over, it's going to really knock on the time. Can I please ask you all to stay within the four minute allocated? Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My noble friend Lord Wolfson has done the House of service because not only through what he said and not only through what he said and the way that he said it, but also he saved me from saying it all over again. I agree with every word he again. I agree with every word he said. I could also spend the entirety of the time allotted to me entirety of the time allotted to me in this debate, and a lot more. Speaking about the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, whose valedictory speech Hennessy, whose valedictory speech we will hear very shortly, thanking him for his contribution to public understanding of our Constitution through his books, his broadcasts, his journalism and his lectures, and, of course, through his participation amongst us here in your Lordships House.

May I like the noble Lady, Lady Manningham-Buller, congratulate him on his becoming a Knight of the Garter, a fitting recognition of. By his Majesty, of his achievements and his service to the country over many years. I should perhaps also add my congratulations to the noble and Leonard, Lord Lord Burnett of Maldon, and to the noble Lord, Lord O'Donnell. My Lords, the noble Lord. Lord Hennessy has written that whereas every other Western democracy has codified its system of government, Britain's constitution is a mishmash of laws and conventions, customs and courtesies.

Britain sees no need for the legalistic writing down of its constitution in one place. Instead, it relies on the notion that its politicians know where the unwritten lines of the Constitution lie and do not cross them. The British constitution, he said, is a state of mind. He famously described this as the good chaps theory of government. It requires a sense of restraint all round to make it work. We have long assumed, he said, that those who rise to high office will be good chaps who understand the rules and choose to observe them.

That has left us vulnerable to those who are not good chaps, but are willing to smash those rules for their own advantage. My Lords, I won't divert myself down my anecdotage to refer to the prorogation case in which I appeared for Sir John Major to intervene on behalf of one former Prime Minister and Leader of my party against the then current leader of my party and Prime Minister. But suffice to say that that case described very neatly what Lord Hennessy was writing about many years ago.

Professor dicey wrote that if you break a convention, you'll end up breaking the law. And in 2019, that prediction was made good when whether one uses the expression good chaps or something else. Although there never was a golden age of politics, and our history is the history of disagreement and occasionally of violent conflict. For most of the last few centuries, we have all understood each other. But that attachment to commonly accepted rules, to passionate but well-argued debate and behaviour in the governance of our country's affairs is, as this weekend has demonstrated, under strain.

I've spoken of the fellowship that existed between parliamentarians, the legal profession and the judiciary, but which has become attenuated. We used to speak the same constitutional language and understood where we could go and where we should not go. The courts didn't invade Parliament and Parliament, and the executive did not abuse the judiciary. Barristers were not attacked for representing unpopular clients or vicious criminals. We are all part of a shared endeavour to do the very best for our country and its people, even if we came from different backgrounds and wanted different outcomes.

May I now just turn very briefly in the last few seconds? I see that on the front bench the noble Lord Lord Timpson, who has worked his guts out trying to improve the prison system, but sadly he has been prevented from doing the one thing that he and I want to do, which is to reform the IPP system, finally and for good. And I am sorry that there was nothing in the in the Gracious Speech that allowed him to bring

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forward a package of reform. I will say no more about the The jury system. There's plenty

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The jury system. There's plenty of time to say something about that when we come to deal with. I understand newly named Courts Modernisation Bill. It's the same. Modernisation Bill. It's the same. It's the same rubbish, but it's a different name. I think the government ought to drop it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government ought to drop it. Yeah yeah yeah yeah.
16:26
Lord Dholakia Portrait Lord Dholakia (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
>> Yeah yeah yeah yeah. >> My Lords. I welcome the Gracious Speech. It sets out some of the new measures announced by the government to some extent following the municipal elections. These claims are overshadowed by the recent goings on in the Labour Party, and we cannot be certain that we'll be able to see the final outcome of much of the legislation. It will depend on who finally leads the Labour government. What we are seeing is a new brand of politics emerging from different political opinions in the country.

My Lords the main point is caught my eyes. With the improving of continuing to invest in the renewal of public services. The government will push forward with significant reforms of the police service. My thought is important. We should bear in mind that we should stop playing snakes and ladders games with our police services, with the most golden opportunity to introduce a Royal Commission on Criminal Justice system. This was in the Labour Party manifesto, which was put to the long grass in the last session of Parliament.

What a golden opportunity to miss. We have a crisis not just in policing issue, but within the overall criminal justice system. Simply looking at policing reform is not going to resolve our problems. Why also the problems? Why have so many children in our care homes? Why have we saw so many family structures broken down? How much is poverty and deprivation added to this problem? And do we need to criminalise our children at the age of ten years or more? Just look at the overrepresentation of black and minority people in our penal institution compared to the general population.

They are not overrepresented in crime as against their numbers in the community. We should be investing more in their welfare, within their family structures. Are we sure that supervision is available for at least the first year when inmates leave prisons? It is important to provide through the gate services so that young people can have a place to live, as well as continuity of training and treatment between prisons and the community. We should not lose of the fact that within the state, when the state incarcerates prisoners, it takes full responsibility for each individual.

We should do well in very different times to say to ourselves that if we lose that responsibility, we will lose control of our criminal justice system. Let me come to some matters quite specific in the Gracious Speech. The government is introducing legislation to restructure the police in England and Wales. This includes creating one big national force to tackle organised crime by merging the National Crime Agency with counter-terrorism, currently led by the Metropolitan Police. And there are other elements of national policing.

My Lords, we welcome the abolition of bodies such as P6, P6. We are called to this and claim some success towards the aim. A properly constituted structure, including local councillors and local representatives representatives. We are doing more effectiveness in our policing and those layers of fund are. Funds that we have wasted so far. My Lords, in the last few months we have seen lots of focus on the role of technology in policing, including the involvement of companies such as Amnesty International, points out.

The three quarters of police forces in the United Kingdom use some form of predictive policing system, a form of technology that notoriously unregulated, which researchers found that system systems lead to the targeting of already overpoliced communities, such as black and ethnic community and working class people. What steps is the government taking through legislation to introduce rigorous oversight of these systems, and will it commit to a public, publicly available and accessible register where police force police forces must register the productive system, predictive system they are developing or using? If we fail here, we will face incidents of conflicts for generations and years to come.
16:31
Lord Case Portrait Lord Case (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, it is an honour. first time, especially in the context of His Majesty's most gracious speech and as a warm up gracious speech and as a warm up act for Lord Hennessy, the state Opening is a reminder of how well our nation does pageantry and ceremony, and therefore I pay tribute to all of the public servants who supported the occasion. And I am, of course, individually grateful to so many of them, saying members of the House staff who've made me welcome here in this place.

Our sovereign's appearance last week was also a reminder of the balance struck within our modern constitutional settlement, which mingles so intricately the majesty of monarchy with the somewhat gnarlier necessities of modern government. The sparkling jewels of the dignified crown, with the rather more thrusting battleground of 21st century politics. As we've all been taught over the ages, both constitutional pillars have their essential parts to play, and both require due care and attention. I was fortunate enough to learn my constitutional history at the feet of some of our finest teachers in the arts and crafts of the British Constitution, in particular the debt I owe to my greatest of noble friends, Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield is one which can never be repaid.

His instruction and guidance have sustained, challenged and encouraged so many students over the decades, and we are all much the better for it. The prof, as we affectionately know him, has so often celebrated the mysteries of our largely unwritten constitution. As already noted. More recently, he has also invited us to observe with sadness the smashed pieces of our so-called good chap principle strewn across the floor of royal palaces. If we are to sustain our tradition of a largely unwritten and therefore dynamic constitution, we must be forever mindful of its inherent fragility.

The flexibility we celebrate can so easily become the catastrophe we regret. Here, in my Lords lays the essential teaching, as each of us takes us, takes our place in line between those who came before us and those who will come after. We must recognise the greatest duty of all that of stewardship. Individually and collectively, we are required to make sure that as our precious union continues its steady stroll through time, decisions, especially those that affect our constitutional foundations, are taken deliberately and thoughtfully, not blithely, nor under anaesthesia.

As the noble Lord Wilson of Dinton once put it, to one of Lord Bowness classes, a deliberate constitution can serve the nation. A careless constitution leaves us unmoored and at risk. To be clear, I do not argue that the job is the preservation of the status quo. When one looks around this country and talks to the people in some of our communities most in need, in places like Barrow in Furness, where I chair a regeneration partnership as recorded in my register of interests, we can see that in too many eyes, power is not being wielded in the interests of those who seek to build or strengthen communities.

Power has to be aligned so that it enables those who have the passion, the creativity and the knowledge to improve lives and efficiently and effectively give people up and down this country. The opportunities to thrive that they so deserve. My Lords, His Majesty informed us that his government is committed to the strength and integrity of the Union of the United Kingdom. That task, I humbly suggest, needs to be one shared far and wide. The preservation of our union is too often reduced to an immediate scrum between specific political parties in any given political moment.

And yet, my Lords, in closing, I would argue that it is a far more serious and enduring task than that it is one rooted in the humble and thoughtful development of our institutions, in the deliberate adjustment of our constitutional arrangements to support those who would do good in our communities, and to take seriously our duty to take what we have learned from those who came before us, and to hand on and improve lot to those who come after.

It is perhaps the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

most important task of all. My Lord. Listening to the noble Lord Lord Case, of course, is a special moment for an old teacher like me, but I thank him, and I like me, but I thank him, and I thank other noble Lords and the Most Reverend Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, for their Archbishop of Canterbury, for their very moving words. There is another factor in play, my Lords. Old PhD supervisors never die. They fade away in libraries and archives, waiting and hoping that their former students do well.

And when they do, the pride is very real. And there's another one of my former PhD students to come. I'll leave that to be a pleasant surprise for you all in this debate. But they also keep these old teachers, the metaphorical red pen poised and mark in their minds what their former pupils say and write. The noble Lord will say, why is an important things aplenty in this chamber and its committees. I shall be waiting, watching and applauding. It was a great day when my friend Doctor Peter Martland, got on the phone from Cambridge and told me he had just the research student for me.

I urged the future Lord Case to get down the myelin road to Queen Mary straight away. He did. He came,
16:37
16:37
16:37
Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield Portrait Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield (Crossbench)
-
-
of the Constitution, I mentioned the noble Baroness leaving Haven. I was not planning a valedictory was not planning a valedictory planet, she said, so I did. My Lords Lady Hayman was one of our bridesmaids. You do not argue with bridesmaids. You do not argue with bridesmaids, said. I'll do it if you come and sit beside me. Let it all becomes too much. We are my Lords. May I offer a few parting thoughts about the British Constitution? To put it as pithily as I can, I am more anxious about it than I have ever been.

Our Constitution has been seriously stress tested in the years since I joined your Lordships' House in 2010. Since then there have been some scarring moments when, for example, the highest in the political land ignored it or disdained it. When the constitutional decencies and proprieties etched into the ministerial code got in his way. It may well be the case that the current course and condition of British politics decays still further into rancour and recrimination. So, my Lords, may I leave one behind? Leave behind.

Just one suggestion that this House and its Constitution Committee carry out an inquiry into where the vulnerabilities of the British Constitution might lie if, heaven forbid, a future government sought to overthrow the conventions that have served us so well in the past. This is not the moment to recite a litany of the peculiar bundle of statutes, codes and practices, customs and precedents that together comprise this elusive phenomenon which has the noble Lord Lord Garnier observed this no, no.

Written, not contained in a single document, and yet somehow lives and breathes every day for the benefit and stability of our country. Instead, I shall concentrate on the human side. The states of mind, the sense of where the boundaries, both visible and invisible, are drawn on the part of all those engaged in public and political life. For the observance of these decencies. Our safety lies the human side of the British Constitution in the past has relied on three feeder streams for its sustenance and refreshment.

Generation upon generation, the civility stream, the way we conduct our political arguments, the tolerance stream, the attitude we take to the losing side and said arguments. The duty of care stream which carries our sense of where the boundaries lie into the everyday conduct of political and public life. It is the conference of these sustaining streams on which the buoyancy our entire system of government depends. Happy is the country fortunate on its people. With a steady flow of this life enhancing cataract is the norm, as the noble Lord Lord Garnier noted, it was a Cabinet Office friend, the late Cai Priestley, who first called this human approach the good chap theory of government.

We wouldn't perhaps use that precise vocabulary today, but my Lords Clive Priestley was right in the end. The vitality and strength of the British constitution does depend upon the sense of duty, public service and restraint of those set in authority above us. We have been mired for too long in the politics of pessimism, as a result of living in what many people regard as a. Nothing worse society. Should this sour. Still further into a politics of despair, we would be in deep trouble.

Crucial to avoiding this will be a replenishment of those feeder streams. This is why, in the end, my Lords, I am optimistic for those Decencies run deep and are. Certain. Idea of Britain to adapt the opening sentence of General Charles de Gaulle's memoirs. I think especially of the brave, stoical generation that fought for us in the huge war of national survival in the 1940s, who planned and implemented a better peace for the generation to which I was born. They showed just how potent the mobilisation of decency can be.

We owe it to their memory and to the generations to come to once more in our time, mobilise that cardinal virtue, for it is the politics of decency that is our greatest protection. Against a slide into the politics of despair, out of whose dark crevices authoritarianism can slink. To mobilise would require no new statute from Parliament. It would need not a penny from the Treasury. But it is a matter of spirit, a question of faith. We have done it before.

My Lord, we can do it again. That is why, in the end, I'm sure we can break out of the cycle of pessimism and hold the line against those who would kerb our liberties and make a bonfire of the decencies, in whose defence we must take our stand and quickly. Because, my special friend, the noble Lord, Lord Keith, has expressed it just now in a sentence that deserves to ring out from this chamber the flexibility we celebrate and so easily become, the catastrophe we regret.

My Lord, it's been a delight to sit with you these past 15.5 years. I shall miss you all and forever cherish the memory of our time together.
16:43
Baroness Taylor of Bolton Portrait Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Labour)
-
-
Well, my. a member of this House is heard in such silence and with such reverence, and it is a great reverence, and it is a great privilege to follow Lord Hennessy. We're all delighted to see him back in his place. We regret that he is in his place. We regret that he is leaving, and we do congratulate him on his appointment of the order of the Garter. But it is rather daunting to try to pay tribute to the work that he has done.

He is held in such high esteem as we've already heard in this House this afternoon. He is a distinguished historian. He is a distinguished academic. He is a distinguished journalist, and he has been a very significant contributor to this House. And that might make him sound rather a dry individual. But as we've seen this afternoon, that is far from the case, because when he speaks about contemporary issues, it's almost as if he's writing the readable history for the future of what is happening at the moment.

And I do recall was once an altar boy, and I think maybe that explains the innocent look, which he sometimes gives us and is very disarming when he's making a particular point in a very significant way. Lord Wolfson looked up Lord Hennessey's maiden speech, as did I, and he did say that he hoped that he could help the House of Lords on constitutional matters, which is exactly what he has done. As a former chair of the Constitution Committee.

I recall some of our meetings during Covid, often held remotely, sometimes with Peter in Orkney joining us, though only joining us with the essential technological help of his wife, Enid, because I don't think he would ever quite have managed to master that particular task. And I can certainly vouch for the fact that Lord Hennessy fulfilled his hope to help the House today. Just now, Lord Hennessy said that he will miss this House and that he will cherish the memories of our time together.

May I say on behalf of us all, that we are grateful for his many insights and the hope that he gave us today at what he described as a very challenging time. Like him, we will cherish the memory of our time together and we wish him and his family well. For my Lords. Turning to the King's Speech and picking up on what has just been said about the strength of the British Constitution. Depending on a sense of duty and public service, I note that the government says in the King's speech that it will, quote, defend British values of decency, tolerance and respect for difference.

Alas, my Lords, defence of these values is needed even more than usual. Anyone who knocked on doors in the recent local elections would probably confirm this. The experience was described by many as toxic, and we do have to assert that greater respect for everyone has to be worked for, and it is a great shame that many good and decent councillors, not just in my own party, were treated very badly, because we do need people with a sense of public service at all levels of government.

And if we are to break out what Lord Bowness described as the politics of pessimism, we have to do more. My Lords, the King's Speech is very heavy, which is good in one sense, because there is much that needs to be done. But in terms of the best functioning of Parliament, I do worry about the weight of legislation and its complexity. I also worry about the knee jerk reaction on many issues that we see today, as if there is only ever a binary choice.

I would like to see more bills presented in draft or after a green paper and a white paper and a system of consultation. But of course, some bills or some parts of bills will always be controversial. And I think that the opposition made that clear today when mentioning the Courts Modernisation Bill. But as I think the Minister pointed out, everyone agrees that the current system is not ideal. And therefore I do wish that we could work more together to work out what practical improvements could actually be made.

And I hope that we can have constructive discussions on this. But one point I would just mention to the Minister on this specific issue is to ask Ministers to intensify their efforts to recruit more magistrates and a more diverse band of magistrates. I know they are trying, but it really is urgent. My Lords this debate is very wide, and so I cannot resist mentioning 1 or 2 other measures in the Queen's in The King's Speech.

As a proud Northerner, I have to welcome the proposed Northern Powerhouse Rail Bill, a long overdue, long neglected and nothing to do with other events that are taking place at the moment. I also welcome the attention that is being given to the late payments problem, a small businesses, because I think many of us have heard many problems of that kind. And I must of course mention and welcome the Sporting Events Bill. But may I finally mention the draft bill to ban abusive conversion practices and abhorrent activity? And I hope that having the bill in draft will enable us to get the details appropriate and comprehensive without causing undue delay.

We have just had a very busy parliamentary session, and it looks like another intense year. I hope that we can have a constructive approach on all sides, and I hope that we can all bear in mind the words of Lord Hennessy that we should try to embrace the politics of decency.
16:50
Baroness Stowell of Beeston Portrait Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Conservative)
-
-
Amen. >> To get straight to. >> The point and take on board the advice of the government. Whip on advice of the government. Whip on duty, my Lord. I was hugely disappointed not to see legislation included in the Gracious Speech when a primary objective of government is restoring public confidence in democracy and our institutions. It's hard to understand why the government is curtailing access to jury trials, but not legislating to prevent the abuse of our legal system and protect access to justice.

Because let's be clear slapps are brought not to protect a claimant's reputation or rights, but to deter burden or silence public interest. Speech in the UK, which is the destination of choice for this aggressive lawfare. Such claims have been brought by sanctioned individuals, hostile state linked actors, perpetrators of serious misconduct, multinational corporations and other well-resourced claimants. But anyone having to defend themselves against a slap is too often forced into submission because they don't have the access to the same kind of money or resource to spend the time and energy engaged in a costly and debilitating fight.

This is a serious situation, and legislation is both necessary and urgent. But in the absence of inclusion in the Gracious Speech, I do nonetheless bring some cheering news because I will be bringing forward a private member's bill. Having been successful in the ballot on Friday. Yeah. Now it is important that we learn from both the Economic Crime Act provisions in regards to Slapps and the debates over the previous private member's bill in how we move forward. So working with the Media Lawyers Association and the UK anti-SLAPP coalition, my bill will cover three principles.

First, an early dismissal mechanism that examines the characteristics of the claim, not the claimant's motives, ensuring that a case concerning an act of public participation will not move forward if a claim is not likely to succeed, and if the public interest expression outweighs the alleged harm to the claimant. This allows judges to balance free expression versus the claimant's rights and to apply well understood legal principles, rather than being bogged down in statutory definitions. Second, express case management powers to allow for a determination to be made on the papers with a short oral hearing only where necessary, ensuring the dismissal mechanism cannot be weaponised by the claimant.

And third, a mechanism to deter slapps by awarding costs against claimants on an indemnity basis and protecting defendants from adverse cost orders. If the case is a slap my Lords. This approach will protect access to justice as a claimant with a strong or genuinely arguable case will proceed, even if it potentially suppress an act of public participation. This mechanism would not prevent claims from being brought, but it would prevent claims without realistic merit from consuming disproportionate resources and doing so much harm.

My Lords well over 100 members of all sides of this House signed a letter to the Prime Minister last month calling for slapps legislation in 2024. The conservative government backed legislation, as did the Labour opposition front bench as it was at the time. We have the opportunity now to achieve what everyone wants an end to the abuse of our legal system, which threatens fundamental principles and at the same time doing it by maintaining access to justice. The House of Lords is well placed to lead on this, and I want to work with all members, especially legal colleagues, who recognise the need for reform and are rightly concerned about overreach.

Today I simply ask the noble Lord, the Minister, if it is he who is going to be winding up, it will be the noble Baroness. No, it will be the noble Lord. OK, but whoever is winding up, I would ask them, and indeed my own, and the Lib Dem frontbench, to confirm that they will work with me in ensuring that on this occasion we succeed.
16:55
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Portrait Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Labour)
-
-
The noble Lord, Lord Hennessy. Yes, my PhD supervisor, though I Yes, my PhD supervisor, though I heard on the way in that he thought the noble Lord, Lord case was the the noble Lord, Lord case was the best he'd ever seen. But I'm happy to follow his interest by talking about just two aspects of the urgent case of task of cleaning up politics. Firstly, about lobbying. I value being lobbied. I think it helps us understand the implications of the proposed.

Or indeed, as we've just heard, much needed legislation, whether that affects business, finance, poverty, consumers, workers, localities or the environment. But this lobbying in this country is basically unregulated. The coalition government did introduce what they called a register of lobbyists, but alas, it only covered consultant lobbying firms and not the much larger industry of in-house lobbyists. Luckily, however, I topped last week's ballot for the private member's bills. So my bill, which will have its first reading on the 1st of June, would extend the register to include in-house lobbyists, and I trust that the House will support that bill as our rather crazy current situation is that that so-called register only includes consultancies and not the most effective of lobbyists.

Those who work within big companies. So lobbyists or public affairs, as they tend to be called directly employed by defence companies or the drinks industries, by utilities, developers or the financial sector. They all work under the radar. In contrast, small bodies, be they SMEs or charities unable to employ their own public affairs departments and therefore who call in the help of consultants. They see that work registered. So advisers to a small charity like Alcohol Concern I used to run must register, but not the public affairs teams of drinks companies.

Secondly, I turn to the idea of a cap of donations from expat voters. I'm very pleased that the report, and now the government has said that it will introduce a cap on donations from overseas voters, many of whom won't have worked lived in the UK for decades and probably have no intention of ever returning here. They don't pay UK tax, they don't use our services or contribute to our economy, but they will still be permitted to donate £100,000 a year.

That's £200,000 for a couple, £1 million within a parliament to a political party. Now we particularly on our side of the House, and I hope the other side may rail about Nigel Farage. Receipt of £5 million from an expat. But why are we all so relaxed? About £1 million per Parliament being donated from a non-resident British couple. No skin in the game and where the source of their money, or even whether they're in prison or working for another government or anything else, cannot be easily verified.

Very different from the way they treat us as p PS. So let's reduce the permitted donation cap for overseas residents to attend, say, ten 000 a year, or only allow such donations from UK taxpayers. My noble friend, in introducing the Minister in introducing this, said she wanted to reduce trust to to rebuild trust in our British

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Constitution. These two measures would move towards that. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. We'd have extra time. Today in. Order to hear more from the noble Lord, Lord, Lord Hennessy. noble Lord, Lord, Lord Hennessy. It's so fitting that it is he who speaks of civility, tolerance and speaks of civility, tolerance and duty of care will so miss him. Following the tradition of bemoaning what is not in the legislative programme, I would have mentioned Slapps, but instead I can
16:59
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
welcome Baroness Stowell PM. This is not to ignore Baroness Hayter. There's also a tradition of calling There's also a tradition of calling for more cross-government working and declaring an association with and declaring an association with the charity Missing People. I note the number of people dying while the number of people dying while missing, mostly by suicide. It's up 30% in six years. The current 30% in six years. The current response led by the police, is just not working. Their role is vital, but they're not alone.

Responsible. All the agencies which deal with safeguarding, exploitation and care need to be mandated to work together. The Home Office should lead on this. Turning to modern slavery and human trafficking, it has grown. While our response has been weakened by a series of regressive reforms. As the independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner notes in her recent report, it, I quote appears in shocking cases that briefly make headlines, but that fade quickly from collective consciousness. Without widespread public awareness, even the strongest laws will struggle to deliver real world impact.

And they're not the strongest laws or the best practice. She is emphatic that people with lived experience see risks and problems long before institutions do, yet we fail to learn from them. At the same time, government claims of widespread misuse and abuse of the national referral mechanism are not supported by the available evidence base. As the Nottingham University Rights Lab points out, and in an increasingly diverse and complex exploitation landscape, last week, the statutory guidance was changed to put a higher burden on survivors to explain what they've gone through.

The Home Office should not be using the term trauma informed when it is so clearly lacking, as is any evidence of understanding retraumatization and slavery is conflated still with immigration and immigration enforcement. We know that legislation in that area will herald measures which these benches will not be able to welcome. The new independent appeals body is to be staffed by adjudicators, not judges. Stricter age assessments. The priority should be ensuring fewer children are incorrectly treated as adults, requiring refugees to repay the cost of Home Office support, without removing barriers to employment so that they can more easily contribute.

And still, the lifeline of family reunion is paused. My noble friend Lord German, I'm sure will say more about that. The writer Horatio Clare puts it well, the story misrepresents everyone, brave and resourceful people crossing the channel in hope and belief have been disfigured into faceless threats. The volunteers, aid workers and very many members of the public who help and support refugees, migrants and asylum seekers are slandered, denigrated or ignored. The populace of Britain, who are as overwhelmingly kind, sympathetic and generous as the people in the small boats.

Believers to be are made to feel fearful, mean and foolish. All good we and our institutions have done has been redacted.
17:03
Lord Hope of Craighead Portrait Lord Hope of Craighead (Crossbench)
-
-
Yes. Yeah. which I had the privilege of being a member together with my noble friend Lord Hennessy, published a report, the title, crafted by the noble Lord himself was Respect and Cooperation Building a Stronger Union for the 21st century. The committee said that there was evidence of an increasing ambivalence about the union among the populations of each nation. Opponents of the Union were saying that its demise is inevitable. It is not, said the committee, but it added that there is no room for complacency.

The Lord Dannatt message has been driven home even more powerfully by the fact that, following the recent elections, explicitly anti unionist parties are now in the majority in each of the three devolved governments. That is something that cannot be left unnoticed. The position is most compelling in Scotland, let us not, because there is evidence that independence is the settled will of the Scottish people. That is far from clear, from being so. But the fact that the two pro-independence parties, the SNP and the Greens, once again have a significant majority over the parties that favour the Union does matter.

It provides the First Minister, John Swinney, with a platform which he is determined to exploit to develop his nationalist agenda. At first sight, all the cards are with the government here at Westminster. Schedule five of the Scotland Act 1998 declares that the Union of the kingdoms of England and Scotland is a reserved matter. So the referendum Bill, which the First Minister is planning to introduce to the Scottish Parliament, will get nowhere unless an order is made under section 30 of that act to modify that arrangement, which is not in prospect.

The Constitution Committee addressed this issue by stating that, while not a panacea, the governance of the UK should be improved by greater respect and cooperation between the nations. That indeed was Lord Hennessey's message. This theme was repeated in the opening words of the Gracious Speech. But I think if the noble Lord will forgive me, this is no longer good enough. We must do more. If the Union is to be preserved, we must do more to ensure that the benefits of the Union are recognised across all the nations, and it needs to make clear what a vote for independence would involve, which is certainly not understood by most of those who favour independence.

My Lords. I offer three suggestions. First thought should be given to introducing a process for granting a section 30 order by setting out in legislation the standard that needs to be achieved. If a referendum on independence is to be authorised. Second, it should be made clear to the First Minister in any future discussions that a yes vote is only the starting point towards independence. We need to know what he plans to do next. And third and most important thought should be given to introducing a provision similar to article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty as to what is to happen should any devolved administration decide to withdraw from the Union, it should be made clear that it will first need to negotiate and then conclude an agreement with the rest of the UK as to the arrangements for withdrawal.

Taking account of the future relationship with the UK. And that is what led to Brexit. The equivalent process for Scotland's departure, should it ever happen, will be even more complicated and it cannot happen. And the those who favour it, it should be reminded of this unless and until a bill that enables it to do so has been passed by the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Parliament here at Westminster. My Lords. It is both an honour and a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is both an honour and a little bit intimidating to follow some of the brilliant speeches we've heard this afternoon, in we've heard this afternoon, in particular the noble Lord Hennessey's valedictory speech. He Hennessey's valedictory speech. He will be very much missed. I want to talk briefly about the proposed
17:07
Baroness Mattinson Portrait Baroness Mattinson (Labour)
-
-
reforms to jury service, which is a subject very dear to my heart as an undergraduate law student. Back in the day, I wrote my final year dissertation on the value of jury service to the English legal system. Back then, I was passionate about how the principle of jury service, the right to be judged by our fellow citizens, was justifiably a cornerstone of British justice and a powerful protection against state overreach. I still am passionate about those things. More recently, working in politics, I've also argued that the principle of legal juries could usefully be extended to wider policy making through the introduction of citizen's juries, where fellow citizens deliberate debate and judge policy.

I think that would also be very useful. Frankly, you would go a long way to find somebody who was more of a champion of jury service, its principles and its process than me. So it's strange for me to find myself here supporting proposals in this King's speech to reduce access to jury service, but support them I do, because our justice system today, unlike the justice system, when I wrote my undergraduate thesis all those years ago, is in crisis. This government has inherited a situation after years of underfunding and neglect, where some 80,000 cases are awaiting trial, bringing untold anguish to the victims of those crimes who are often unable to move on with their lives.

Many victims are waiting for years for justice. 21,000 cases have been waiting more than a year. My noble friend, the Minister has eloquently set out a series of measures designed at last to tackle this head on and to address this backlog. I strongly support these proposals and believe that they are, as my noble friend, the Minister has said, proportionate and sensible, a price worth paying to end the agonising and unacceptable wait for victims and their families and, frankly, those seeking to clear their names to have been forced to endure in recent years.

They know better than most that justice delayed is justice denied. At a time when trust in politicians and politics is at an all time low, we hear a lot about how governments fail to tackle the tough decisions to take them on, too often choosing instead the easy route, which is to kick the challenge into the long grass and in doing so, to prop up the failing status quo while the vulnerable live with the consequences of that broken system. I am proud and relieved that this government is prepared to be bold, to grasp the nettle, and to put the victims of crime first.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

To follow. Lady Maddison's Well-argued speech. There were plenty more arguments on that subject, I arguments on that subject, I suspect, but today is Lord Hennessy's day. Though we were Hennessy's day. Though we were privileged to hear a powerful maiden speech from Lord Case. But can this really be the troublesome young journalist for the times, whom I used to have lunch with in whom I used to have lunch with in early 1970s in direct disobedience to Lord Casey's predecessor, Sir Burke Trend, who had forbidden any contact with this dangerous figure, can this in her mind and should really be the same? Yes, it is, but my goodness, wouldn't Burke be surprised? But he would be pleased.

And I have to say that Lord Hennessy, together with the noble Lady, Lord Lord Burnett, and the noble Lord, Lord O'Donnell, has put paid to a traditional part of the British Constitution. He has, perhaps on the advice with some advice here from the noble Chancellor, Lady Manningham-Buller of the Order, order, put paid to Lord Melbourne's dictum that it's no merit about the Garter. This was an essential part of our Constitution, and I really think that it's laying it to rest as it has now been laid.

Finally, to rest is something to be welcomed. But I come not only to praise Lord Hennessy and to say how much I valued our personal friendship over many years, plotting about more open government and many other things. But to say that we mustn't just praise him, we must listen to him. I like Lady Henry. I'm a present member, as Lord Hope was before of the Constitution Committee. I think we should listen.
17:12
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill Portrait Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Conservative)
-
-
Exactly, and I will put this before our fellow members, of whom I'm only one, of course, that we should only one, of course, that we should now be looking to the very present dangers which do exist for our dangers which do exist for our Constitution, to try to identify the weaknesses, to try to bolster the weaknesses, to try to bolster the strengths, to say, sometimes, perhaps there should be more legal backing here, though the introduction of lawyers into the process of government isn't always to be welcomed.

But we should look to the weaknesses while we have time, because I, like Lord Hennessy, predict that this is going to come under grave attack or is liable to in years in the years ahead. Because, my noble Lords, it's no news to any of you that we have powerful forces about in the political world of the United Kingdom at the moment who are blaming the instruments of government and not their own policies for the problems we face. Now, I believe there is in a prominent position in this country, the son of a of a toolmaker, and he should surely know the phrase, as we all were brought up with it, that a bad workman blames his tools.

It is not the independent civil service. It is not some imaginary deep state. It is not any of this nonsense which stops good policy being made. It is that we have lost, I have to say, in the House of Commons, the capacity to debate new legislation in the way it ought to be debated, and that is at the heart of quite a lot of the ills and of the problems that this House now faces. But it is in the lack of considered and consensual in the broadest sense, the sense of consensus that linked Sir Winston Churchill to Mr.

Ernie Bevin, two people who could hardly have been more different in background in every other way. But that sense of consensual patriotism, which leads to good long term policy. So I for one, hope to, in a small way, respond to the appeal from Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hennessy and hope that the House as a whole will listen carefully to what he says. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Sir. An honour to follow Lord Waldegrave and his sweeping look at history, and indeed the Constitution. My Lords, the Gracious Speech has a lot of legislation contained therein, but legislation contained therein, but there are two omissions that I just want to mention in passing. The first is a very welcome omission, and that's the decision not to
17:15
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee Portrait Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-affiliated)
-
-
and that's the decision not to proceed with Diego Garcia Bill, which of course was an affront to the rights of the Baloch community. And the second omission is a missed opportunity, and that is on welfare reform. And no doubt we will come back to that matter. But in the short time available to me, I want to highlight just two issues. The first is around extremism, and I met with Jonathan Hall KC, the noble Lord. The Minister will be pleased to hear just last week he is carrying out a review of section one of the Terrorism Act and its effectiveness in dealing with the glorification of terrorism, and I look forward to continuing the dialogue with Mr.

Hall about his review, and hope that he can make impactful recommendations to His Majesty's Government, because for me, there is a gap in the legislation which allows the pressing of terrorism. The impact of that is that it goes beyond actually direct incitement. It's about the erosion of democratic resilience and indeed social cohesion as well. And I believe, my Lords, we need to send a clear message from Parliament to confront and reject extremism in all its forms by making the glorification of terrorism something which is not normalised, but rather seen as the radicalisation tool which it is.

Secondly, as this debate covers the Union, I wanted to briefly reflect on the recent election results across the nation with the sometimes inaccurate commentary that has followed. First of all, I certainly do not think the results should be ignored or glossed over by those of us who care deeply about the Union, but rather they should also not be misrepresented. In Wales, plaid Cymru has broken through in a remarkable way and become the largest party, with 35.4% of the vote.

But with respect to Plaid's victory, that figure is nowhere near a majority for breaking up the union in Wales, especially when one looks at the turnout, which was only 51.6%, meaning that nearly half of the Welsh electorate stayed at home in Scotland, the SNP captured 38.2% of the vote in the constituency ballot, which is down 9.2% from 2021. And when combined, the pro-independence Greens with the independents Greens, the vote share for pro-independence party only totals 41.15%, which is the second lowest vote share for pro-independence parties since 2007.

More seats, however, with less votes. Why? Well, because of the fragmentation of the pro-union vote. And this is unfortunately something which we're very familiar with in Northern Ireland. And in 2022, the Sinn Féin vote was just 29%. And when combined with the Sdlp, it reaches 38%. So there is still clearly a pro-union majority, not just in Northern Ireland, my Lords, but in Scotland and in Wales as well. And I, I do want to point out to noble Lords that the Sinn Fein First Minister of Northern Ireland is a joint First Minister with the Unionist Deputy First Minister.

The First Minister cannot take any decision without the agreement of the Deputy First Minister and the hyperbole about the three devolved First Ministers being separatists is not correct. Northern Ireland is led jointly by two Ministers in the Executive Office with equal powers and equal say. That's the price of power sharing, and many have conveniently forgotten or chosen to ignore that fact. And I think it's very important that it is noted here today and very finally, for the First Minister of Scotland to cosy up to Sinn Fein and tell us to move on, I say this it is difficult to move on from Sinn Fein's dark past when they refuse to move on from their dark past and continue to glorify the violence of the IRA.

As Elise Weisel said, to forget the dead would be akin to killing them a second time.
17:19
Lord Dobbs Portrait Lord Dobbs (Conservative)
-
-
And. >> My Lords. >> A little while. >> Ago. >> I became. >> Aware of the case of a young man

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Aware of the case of a young man charged with multiple counts of rape. He was arrested late at night rape. He was arrested late at night in front of his weeping parents, taken away in a police van. It was five years before he came to trial. The trial itself lasted five days. When it finished, the jury, nine of whom were women, took less than five minutes to find him not guilty. The jury was so distressed that afterwards they waited for the young man out in the street, and one by one they embraced him on the pavement because of the terrible injustice that he had been put through.

Five years of a young life, wiped out, reduced to cleaning portaloos. And in their turn, every member of that jury wanted a hug from him to help soften their own pain from being part of the process. My Lords. Our system is not only blind nowadays, it is also deaf and it is dying. Hyperbowl no Hillsborough Law and bad blood and the Rotherham grooming gangs, Grenfell Tower, the Post Office scandals in which thousands of people died, many by suicide when tens of thousands of other lives ruined because public servants ticked their little boxes and left it at that.

No one took responsibility. My Lords rape is a terrible crime and it's a terrible accusation. Yet neither the police nor the CPS review the defence material. No witnesses were interviewed. The prosecuting lawyer hadn't even finished reading the file when the trial began. Didn't even know there was more than one charge to answer. That is justice today. This was a dereliction of duty by public servants on an inexcusable scale. And it happens every day. So who is responsible? My Lords well, ultimately we are.

We wake up in the morning, read terrible headlines and say something must be done. We wave our magic wands, write a manifesto, pull out dead rabbits from the hat. We make new laws. We issue more orders that overwhelm the system. Good intentions that have paved the way to hell. And in every corner, instead of the sound of justice, you hear the echoes of files being shuffled, of statistics being manipulated, of lawyers gaming, the system of boxes being ticked and hands being washed.

The only semblance of justice given to this young man came from the jury. And yet, ironically, the government are threatening our jury system. My noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar so powerfully pointed all that out. The government must think again. British justice was once regarded as the fairest and finest in the world, but nowadays we find her lying face down in the mud, our fault and our duty to fix.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, I, like. Others, note that the King's speech did not mention speech did not mention constitutional or political reform. The representation of the people's Bill addresses some of the external Bill addresses some of the external threats to our constitutional democracy, but does nothing to address the domestic threats, both address the domestic threats, both from the depth of public disillusion and from the frailty of our constitutional safeguards against abuse of executive power. Public mistrust in Westminster politics, even in democracy as such, continues to rise, polls show the leader of my party as the least unpopular political leader at the moment.

But that's to say that all leaders in Westminster are
17:24
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Portrait Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
currently in negative territory. Yet Labour's promises in its 2024 manifesto to, I quote, deepen our manifesto to, I quote, deepen our democracy through parliamentary reform. It's been almost forgotten. It did set up a modernisation committee in the Commons, but that's so far mainly achieved that's so far mainly achieved improved accessibility for disabled members and has done nothing to address the order of Commons address the order of Commons business. Lords reform shuffles another couple of paces forward. The manifesto promised to move towards a second chamber.

I quote more reflective of the nations and regions that disappeared when I raised with the Minister during the devolution Bill. The question of how the new English mayoral Council will relate to the current, much weaker Council of Nations and regions, she seemed unaware that there might be a problem with relations between the different governments within our union. The local elections have shown that two party politics has disappeared, leaving our Electoral commission, electoral system and the conventions of Parliament unfit for purpose.

In several local authorities. The former has won a majority of seats on a third or less of the vote in Richmond on Thames. The Liberal Democrats won every seat on little more than half the vote, which is not itself an advertisement for proper democracy. Labour's massive majority in the Commons was won on barely a third of votes cast on a turnout of less than 6 in 10. It's possible that at the next election, a party could win a majority of seats on under 30% of votes cast on an even lower turnout.

That would be a real democratic crisis, the Conservatives promised in the 2015 election campaign that they would provide strong and stable single party government, instead of what they described as a coalition of chaos. Since then, we've suffered years of chaotic single party government under the Conservatives and sadly, now also under Labour. Three weeks ago, a consortium of NGOs published a manifesto entitled Defensive Constitutional Reform preventing the UK from going the way of the US. They noted the growth of populist and authoritarian movements in European democracies, and the ease with which President Trump has swept aside the stronger constitutional safeguards, legal constraints and democracy scrutiny in the American system.

Our constitutional safeguards are weak. We've already seen one Prime Minister attempt to bypass parliament and govern by executive power. And as the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy and others have said, we are no longer governed by good chaps alone. All of us in government and in democratic parties are now in opposition. Need to consider together what changes in the way Parliament operates in the balance between central national and local government, and in the central nature of central government itself, are needed to defend effective constitutional democracy from the threats we now face.

All the King's Speech offered us instead is a bill to remove hereditary titles from the roll of peers.
17:27
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Portrait Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)
-
-
My noble friend Lord Hennessy of to. >> That was evident today. >> As we proceed. >> Without him. We mustn't let him

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Without him. We mustn't let him down. Laws sending social messages, candour and individual accountability must improve in all sectors. Human nature and fear intimidate people from admitting when decisions are often taken in haste have been wrong for the bereaved fighting for years to reveal the truth. Truth is essential in coping with their grief. Financial compensation doesn't stop the pain, but being misled and cover ups make grieving much more painful, burning into people's soul as they search for honour, facts and peace.

Legislation is long overdue. In court modernisation, magistrates non-custodial sentencing powers must widen. Take alcohol fuelled crime and alcohol abstinence abstinence tags. And I declare I chaired the Commission on Alcohol Harms. The initial pilot in Wales was impressive, with recent data suggesting that recidivism, when tagged, remains low. Will the government now use Probation's longer term data from the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test Audit to gain further insights to guide magistrates sentencing drink related harm cost the country around £21.5 billion a year, with alcohol playing a part in 4 in 10 serious crimes.

20% of offenders on probation misuse alcohol so sobriety sentencing longer than four months could improve long term outcomes. The increase in in drink drug crimes needs urgent development of drug detection. Tags linked to treatment, not only alcohol detection tags. The cycle of criminality is only broken through adequate prevention. The links between health and criminality are stark. Women make up 4% of the prison population, over half a neurodiverse or have trauma induced brain injury. Many had experienced domestic or sexual abuse.

Coercive relationships need mental health treatment. Were drinking out of control, often with a drug problem, and some had overdosed before sentencing. Around 1 in 5 have been in the care system each year, around 600 pregnant women are incarcerated with missed antenatal care, preterm or precipitate labour more common and insufficient prison mother and baby units, trials and sentences. Sentencing must recognise that better prison health for one can alter an entire family's trajectory as prisoners, children experience high rates of emotional distress, disrupted attachment, poorer educational outcomes and future vulnerability.

Clean water legislation across England and Wales as Welsh Water supplies into England, while the Severn impacts both England and Wales, can the noble Lord, the Minister, confirm that, as intended, the Senate is intricately involved in legislative control of water companies, stringent enough to ensure water companies comply rather than just meet a minimum standard. Planning legislation must be linked. We need food production, not concreted over land and gardens that increase surface water runoff into drains and affect the water table.

Our inadequate water treatment and sewage plants require urgent investment leverage through regulation. Farmers need incentives to decrease ammonia and other fertiliser use. Undertake muck spreading, as in Ireland, with nutrients absorbed into the into the soil rather than running off into waterways. My Lords comments on the health Bill are for another

**** Possible New Speaker ****

day. Thank you. My Lords. Extremism in democratic societies rarely democratic societies rarely presents itself fully formed. More often it emerges through gradual shifts in what is tolerated, expected and left unchallenged. These shifts are now visible, declining trust in institutions, tolerance of political violence, tolerance of political violence, and the spread of conspiracy narratives. The question is not how we respond, but whether we recognise the conditions that allowed these to take root and to act while there is still time.

The programme, set out in The King's Speech, recognises elements of this challenge, including tackling antisemitism and ensuring communities feel safe. The question is whether our approach is keeping pace on how extreme extremism now operates, or whether recognition is running ahead of response. Changes in the law are necessary, but not, but not in itself. Sufficient extremism is not only a matter for statute, it develops in the spaces between law, culture and consent. One indicator of extremism is a point where extraordinary measures become ordinary.

Jewish communal life is increasingly operating behind permanent security, not as a temporary response, but as a condition of participation in public life. When this becomes unremarkable, it reflects a failure not only of safety but of equality. This reflects a deeper shift in how belonging is understood. A defining feature of extremist thinking is the imposition of loyalty tests. The idea that participation depends on repudiating part of one's identity. Jews are expected to disavow Israel or Jewish identity as a condition of inclusion.

No other community is asked to renounce history or connection. In this way. Conditional belonging is incompatible with a pluralist democracy. What belonging, when belonging becomes conditional language, becomes instrumental of. In exclusion. The term Zionist is
17:34
Lord Pickles Portrait Lord Pickles (Conservative)
-
-
often used in ways that enable the collective targeting of Jews while collective targeting of Jews while maintaining a veneer of legitimacy. When a political label becomes a When a political label becomes a proxy for people, individual responsibility is replaced by a collective blame. This is not robust debate. It's modern anti-Semitism. These patterns persist where response is fragmented. Extremism now operates beyond traditional frameworks through online radicalisation, fluid, ideological. The coordinated intimidation where frameworks are incomplete, the effort.

The effect is permissive. Silence is rarely. Neutrality. Over time. When it is tolerated, it expands. When security becomes normal, belonging. Conditional language obscures exclusion, and silence signals acceptance. Democratic standards are lowered. The risk is not extremism itself. It is quiet accommodation within what is accepted. The responsibility before us is clear not simply to respond once harm is visible, but to define and uphold the conditions in which equal participation is non-negotiable, explicit, consistent and protected.

Because my Lords. Once equality must be argued for rather than assumed, it is already in retreat.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I'm mindful of the irony of raising issues of democracy in what is now an democracy in what is now an entirely appointed chamber. My expectation when I entered the expectation when I entered the House in 1999 was there would soon be elections to this place, and I be elections to this place, and I never thought that it would take 29 years just to complete the removal of the right to sit here of hereditary peers. That modest step is taking place only 115 years since it was promised.

In the preamble to the Parliament Act of 1911, that legislation from Asquith's Liberal government made reforms to the powers of the House pending it becoming a body constituted on a popular instead of a hereditary basis. My Lords, democracy is not perfect. In 1947, Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government. Except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. So I believe that letting people use ballot papers to choose at least most of us who sit in this place, as opposed to relying on the personal whims of prime Ministers and party leaders, would strengthen our effectiveness.

It would avoid the accusations of cronyism that sullies the reputation of the House. It would reduce the number of scandals concerning party finances, and it would prevent the prospect of peerages being bestowed or blocked as a means of persuading potential appointees to toe a particular line, switch party support or open a chequebook. Too many appointments. My Lords have been made here to make people Ministers, but who then shortly afterwards give up on that job, or the people who want the title but not the responsibility, and who also rapidly disappear? It took 27 years to end the temporary gentleman's agreement provided for the holding of by elections to replace departing hereditary peers.

That was because of determined filibusters by a handful of members. It was clear that the will of the House on that issue was unfairly blocked. So it was with the assisted dying bill, where it was made impossible to return the Bill to the Commons for it to be considered further. My Lords, I am strongly opposed to introducing timetables in this place for government legislation, but I do think that the time has come when we need to agree timetables for private member's bills.

We also need, in this session to strengthen legislation to safeguard core democratic principles, the latest representation of the people bill fails to do that because it does not provide for a cap on the size of donations to a political party, except for those from overseas. Extremely wealthy donors can potentially buy a political party, purchase a party leader and change the outcome of a general election with, for example, the reported £1 million payments to two party leaders to make them agree on an electoral pact.

We need to put a cap on the size of any one donation in any one year. I suggest that the precise limit be proposed by the Electoral Commission, but donations such as Frank Hester's to the Conservative Party of £20 million in the last Parliament and those of Christopher Harborne, perhaps of up to £30 million to the various iterations of the Reform Party and its leader must be absolutely banned. If our democracy is not for sale. sale.
17:40
17:40
Baroness Martin of Brockley Portrait Baroness Martin of Brockley (Labour)
-
-
subject coinciding with the publication today of the government's excellent new White Paper on Youth Justice, the youth justice system built on the foundations of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, has been one of Disorder Act 1998, has been one of the great success stories of modern public policy since the act came into force. First time entrants to into force. First time entrants to the system have fallen by 93%. Proven offences by children are Proven offences by children are down 88%, and the number of children in custody has dropped by over 85%.

That success does not belong to one party alone. Labour's 1998 legislation created the architecture Youth offending teams, working locally to prevent and punish alongside national leadership from the Youth Justice Board. But subsequent governments have maintained that architecture sustaining those gains. We know what works. Local multidisciplinary teams, early identification and intervention before the justice system gets involved, not ideology evidence, but today's white paper is clear that challenges remain. Eight out of ten prolific offenders committed their first crime as a child.

Two thirds of children released from custody reoffend within a year, compared to just one third of those given community sentences. The case for early community based intervention could not be clearer. Most recently, the independent evaluation of the turnaround programme found that 93% of children who completed it did not go on to receive a caution or conviction, and I therefore welcome the further funding announced for this programme today. Ministry of justice analysis shows that reoffending costs this country £18 billion a year.

Of that, £1.5 billion is attributable to children and young people alone. Every single pound of that is a pound that we could have saved by acting earlier, but the gains go far beyond the public finances. Reoffending is not simply a cost to the state, it is a drain to our national potential. When a young person enters the revolving door of the justice system, we risk losing them, the worker who may never reach their potential, the entrepreneur whose business may never be started, and the skills and talent that our economy needs left untapped.

Today's commitment to consult on reforming childhood criminal records so that a mistake made at 15 does not track a person for life speaks directly to this economic argument, because we know that a criminal record is one of the most powerful barriers to employment, significantly reducing the chances of being called to interview, let alone getting the job. So if we're serious about unlocking the potential of every young person, we cannot ask employers to give young people a second chance. While the system itself refuses to my Lords.

I came to this House with a conviction that the circumstances of your birth should not determine how far you go or what you contribute. Today's white paper is a serious, evidence based response to that challenge. The evidence tells us what works. The economics tells us that it pays. I welcome the white paper. I look forward to working with Ministers on this and on other issues to ensure that we deliver on our ambitions for a modern youth justice system fit for the future.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Two points. Firstly, I welcome the commitment in the Gracious Speech to process the Hillsborough Bill, creating a duty of candour for public servants. As His Majesty said, the highest standards of said, the highest standards of trust in public office are essential for the social contract and for the United Kingdom's and for the United Kingdom's collective security. I acknowledge the import of the risks to our national security. Identified by the noble Baroness Baroness Manningham-Buller. Massive risks continue to be managed, and we have to find a way to accommodate accountability and transparency whilst protecting our national security.

The two are not mutually exclusive. When this bill could
17:45
Baroness O'Loan Portrait Baroness O'Loan (Crossbench)
-
-
allow the security intelligence services to avoid even admitting that they hold information relevant that they hold information relevant to an investigation or inquiry on grounds of national security, but actually my Lords our security actually my Lords our security services rely on cooperation from many ordinary people, and there is many ordinary people, and there is a need to maintain that level of support and to work out what information actually needs to be information actually needs to be protected, what is no longer in absolute need of protection and can be revealed either in full or through a protective process.

And that brings me to my second point. My Lords, Her Majesty's Government promised to repeal the widely rejected Northern Ireland Troubles Act 2030, which caused such distress to victims. But now they've stepped back. They have proposed a reformed Legacy Commission, which reconstituted from the. ICRIRICRIR, has 273 staff, fewer than half of whom were investigated. It has some wonderful staff. They know what they should be able to do, but the ICRIR doesn't have the investigatory powers, which over 600 public authorities, including the Care Quality Commission, the Food Standards Agency and all UK local authorities have.

They were removed from the bill by the conservative government at the later stages of the Bill's process through the House. It has no powers to access telecommunications data. The Gambling Commission, the Health and Safety Executive are those. It doesn't have power to access financial data. The bill before the Other place does not confer these powers on the proposed Legacy Commission. When Lord Oates a highly critical report on the ICIR was published last week identifying very significant problems, the Commission is approaching the end of its second year.

It has spent some 650 sorry, some £65 million. It hasn't produced a single report. My Lords for the New Legacy Commission. To gain the confidence of the people, it must be a new, properly empowered investigative commission. Of course, there will be few prosecutions, but the investigators must have the powers to which I've referred. They are investigating heinous crimes, including the Guildford pub bombings, the M62 coach bombings in Yorkshire, the murder of civilians, RUC and army officers and a judge.

One person was recently told that although the ICR might have some forensic evidence, they don't have a forensic scientist to examine it. My Lords, that is truly shocking. Consideration of any case must involve examining all available material, any secret reports, etc. and then using investigative modern investigative techniques. Only if that is done, will the Commission be able to gain the confidence and trust of the people who lost loved ones in the trouble, as many veterans, both from the police and army who served so honourably, have said, we don't want special treatment.

We just want fairness. That fairness will include acknowledgement by the state of the situations in which it got things wrong or failed to act to prevent crime. Such candour must be required of all organisations of the state. My Lord. Significant amendment will be required to the Bill currently before the other House. If the Northern Ireland is to have a Legacy Commission which is strong, truly independent, has the powers to carry out effective investigation and treat suspects in accordance with the law and respects their rights and those of the many victims of the Troubles.

Will the noble Lord, the Minister, assure us that the new Commission will actually have the powers it needs? I share the pleasure that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The word Chagos didn't appear in the. Gracious Speech, and I hope that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gracious Speech, and I hope that that's the end of the matter. I want to talk, first of all, about want to talk, first of all, about the fact that the. In the Gracious Speech, there was a great deal of Speech, there was a great deal of talk about commitment at the end to the strength and integrity of the union of the United Kingdom. And yet, my Lords, because of the Windsor framework, Northern Ireland is subject to the EU's customs code,
17:49
Baroness Hoey Portrait Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)
-
-
which declares Great Britain to be a third country. So when I travel over each week from Belfast, I'm in over each week from Belfast, I'm in theory, coming to a foreign country. We don't have a full democracy anymore. We have a partial anymore. We have a partial democracy with 300 areas of laws being imposed and this is being imposed and this is unsustainable and the integrity is already being threatened. And now the European Partnership Bill seeks the European Partnership Bill seeks to fast track EU rules into our law.

The vote to leave the EU was a vote to take back control, not to give it away so that we could make our own laws without being overruled by a majority voting. And that vote was for the exact opposite of what is now happening in Northern Ireland and what the government now wants for the rest of the United Kingdom, without any mandate for doing so. And of course, the bill will still leave the United Kingdom divided into two by an international customs union. So we have to leave the EU properly.

And I look forward to the noble Lord Dodds private member's bill drawn number five on the Withdrawal Agreement Bill, which was introduced last session by the hon. Member for North Antrim. Just a word or two on the reintroduction of troubles, Bill. I do think that Sir Declan Morgan and the ICRIR must be given a fair chance to succeed. And I think that on this bill there is a widely held view that the Secretary of State is far too worried about what the Irish Government want, rather than what our veterans want and our victims need.

Last week we had a statement from the Secretary of State on the the Dillon judgement, which was came out from the UK Supreme Court. The unanimous decision of the Supreme Court is massively important for the future of the Troubles Bill and due to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, acting on behalf of the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement. The Supreme Court also stated its view on amnesty or conditional immunity for the purpose of reconciliation. As in the 2023 Legacy Act, and that on the day the UK government statement proclaimed that this, the court went out of its way to refute the main argument put forward for immunity.

And then in the statement, the Secretary of State said contrary to what has been claimed by some, the UK Supreme Court has not endorsed the immunity scheme. Well, nobody said it had. But the judgement summary did say that the Supreme Court finds that the Strasbourg court has not decided that there is a reconciliation exception brackets, though it has not ruled out the possibility that such an exception may exist. And this is very significant. And it was studiously omitted by the Secretary of State, who also admitted, of course, to say that Lord Hermer had withdrawn the human rights appeal in July 2024.

Isn't it a nonsense, my Lord, that we have primary legislation, legislation in the form of the Troubles Bill amending the 2023 act and alongside it an unavoidable secondary legislation remedial order, also amending the 2023 act. The order should be scrapped and the bill rewritten. The Supreme Court judgement was a huge blow to the Northern Ireland Human Rights and Equality Commissions and the Northern Ireland courts, who, of course, were found to have acted unlawfully. But sadly, the NIH and the EC are part of an industry of of, of lawfare, of activist organisations and they can no longer operate in a way that commands confidence across the political spectrum.

It's time to ask whether they serve any useful purpose for the huge amounts of money funded by taxpayers. Finally, my Lords, the truth is that Labour's central belief system is no longer British based but European based. And what is missing? What is missing from the King's Speech is our withdrawal from the EC. Until we do that, all talk of toughening our policies on immigration and protecting our veterans will fail.
17:53
Baroness Noakes Portrait Baroness Noakes (Conservative)
-
-
Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I will focus. My brief time on anti-Semitism. Only around half of 1% of the UK's population are Jewish. To our very great shame, they are probably the least safe group in our society. Jewish schools and children have to be guarded. Only last week, a group of Jewish children were seen on the London streets guarded by guards in state dress. The Jewish places of worship have to have extensive security measures. But as we saw with the murderous attack on the synagogue, even that is not enough.

No other religious group in the UK has to go to these lengths to keep themselves safe. Symbols such as the Star of David or the kippah carry a clear risk of unprovoked attack. As the vicious stabbings in Golders Green laid bare, Jewish students on campuses suffer routine antisemitism, and the university authorities have done little to protect them. Now, anti-Semitism is not, of course, a new phenomenon, but as it has been intensifying and threats to Jewish people have now reached truly dreadful proportions, it is ironic that they got much worse after the October 7th assault by Hamas terrorists on the people of Israel.

The whole world should have rallied around Israel and the need to defend its people. Instead, many countries, including the UK, tolerated anti-Israel protests and lies about genocide, which has allowed antisemitism to flourish under the guise of anti-Zionist or anti-Israel sentiment. It is shocking that it took the recent attacks in north London to make the police and the CPS wake up to the plain criminal intent of posters and chants such as Globalise the Intifada, which can only reasonably be interpreted as a call to kill Jews everywhere.

Now, the Gracious Speech did promise a bill to tackle state threats, and so we might at long last see the evil IRGC prescribed, but that it will not be enough. The government must do more to tackle Counter-extremism anti-Semitism hides amongst extremisms of all kinds, including, as other noble Lords have said, the extreme right and the extreme left, as well as Islam, Islamic extremism. The prevent programme is not up to this task. More must be done.

Policing and law enforcement must be clear, unbiased and speedy in ways that it has not always been. In the past. Anti-Semitism, like all forms of racism, must be stamped upon and all policy areas need to be viewed through the lens of eradicating the hatred of Jews. If the government cannot make Jewish people be safer and feel

**** Possible New Speaker ****

safer, that will be a colossal failure. Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. Last week the Home Affairs Committee in the other place held a very important session on the scourge of anti-Semitism, which has just been described very powerfully by the noble Lady Baroness Noakes. Among the experts they took evidence from were Dave Rich from the Community Security Trust and
17:56
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath Portrait Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Labour)
-
-
the Community Security Trust and Danny Stone from the Antisemitism Policy Trust, both of whom I got to know, respect and was grateful to for their advice. When I led the Labour Party's work on tackling anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, Danny advised the committee that it is very important that politicians of all political parties, and none should address anti-Semitism in their ranks very much as the Labour Party did when the then Sir Keir Starmer became its leader in 2020. I'm sure he's right about this, so I would like us to use today's home.

I would like to use today's home affairs debate to propose to noble Lords across this House, that the time is right for a cross-party campaign to tackle anti-Semitism amongst politically active people, wherever they are. Two of the vital ingredients of the work which the Labour Party undertook were training and complaints handling a comprehensive training programme for all Labour MPs. All my noble friends in this House, the Senate, Scottish Parliament and thousands of members across the country. An independent complaints process to ensure that anti-Semitism and indeed any discrimination, was fully challenged.

This required careful design to get it right. The Equalities and Human Rights Commission approved the action plan, developed in 2021, and gave the party a clean bill of health on this in 2023. This combination of training and complaints handling made a huge difference to the Labour Party, and I commend it to the Green Party and to reform and to other political parties to. It would be helpful to understand what the Eour are doing now, and if they have plans to address the anti-Semitism seen from a number of candidates in the recent local elections.

But why wait until people become politically active before teaching them about anti-Semitism? By which I mean starting at school, particularly given the legislation we will shortly be debating on allowing 16 and 17 year olds to debate none of mine. Nearly 18 year old daughters, friends and classmates watched television news or read newspapers. They access any news and current affairs that they may be interested in, mainly on their phones with Instagram, TikTok and YouTube, helping them curate content through algorithms, pushing content accordingly.

Regrettably, an interest in, say, some candidates in the recent local elections or what began as a perfectly interest healthy interest in, say, the Israeli-palestine conflict. All too easily leads to antisemitic antisemitic content taking over. This meant education and an important part of the fight against anti-Semitism. Its history, current context and the repulsive tropes that are rampant on social media. Absolutely vital. This would soon filter through to the students of tomorrow on university campuses, whereas we have, as we have all too often heard in this chamber, anti-Semitic abuse and even attacks are rife.

The importance of teaching school children about anti-Semitism was raised. Last week's Home Affairs Committee, this time by way of my noble friend Lord Mann, who gave evidence as the government's independent adviser on anti-Semitism. My noble friend was very clear about the vital importance of training teachers, he said. He has been calling on the government to ensure that all secondary teachers are trained. The good news is that His Majesty's Government has recently let a contract to train secondary school teachers, but that is a plan to train 650 of them.

There are more than 4000 secondary schools in England and more than 200,000 secondary teachers. We need, as my noble friend Lord Reid spoke of earlier, a civil society, to be responding as well as the criminal justice system to the scourge of anti-Semitism. So let's put rocket boosters under this programme and ensure it matches the scale of the challenge. This, combined with political parties and their candidates putting their own houses in order, could really make a practical and sustainable difference in tackling the terrible scourge of anti-Semitism.

Here I.
18:00
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
Welcome the. Rhetoric of the >> Welcome the. Rhetoric of the Chisinau Declaration and the wonderfully sensible words in the number ten briefing on the immigration bill that bogus illegals will not be able to use every excuse under the sun to prevent them from being sent back. Will it happen? I doubt it, since we have two major problems. First, it's just a political declaration and not one word of the treaty will change. The same judges will continue expanding their powers, undermining democratic governments.

What most people don't realise, my Lords, is that the majority on the court are not real judges as we understand them or as we see in this House, but legal academics, many of whom were not, get a lectureship in one of our low grade polytechnics. The second problem is the appalling decisions of many of our own immigration judges who have refused to send back murderers, paedophiles and rapists since the poor darlings would not get the same luxurious prison treatment they get here.

So unless we amend our own laws and get some and get rid of some incompetent judges, none of the rhetoric will work. My Lords, I serve on the Council of Europe and for the last few years, colleagues from many other countries, including left wing and Socialist MPs, have been saying that massive Islamic immigration is destroying 500 years of Judeo-Christian liberal democracy in Europe. They bring a different attitude to our laws, culture and even democracy itself. They say my Lords either a little flat near here for almost 30 years, and I've seen the demographic changes, the influx of Somalis, Eritreans, Syrians, Iraqis and others from sub-Saharan Africa.

I've seen, unfortunately, the increase in aggro and hostility to our way of life and yes, liberal democracy as well. I've seen the increase in criminality from people just off the boat, then driving big illegal bikes on the pavement for Deliveroo and Uber Eats. Next day, at one end of the scale and at the other the machete culture we seem to have imported from Africa. My Lords. There's a little Tescos in Strutton ground and a Sainsbury's in Marsham Street, both sort of seven elevens.

When I came back after Christmas, they both had erected big steel frames with bullet resistant glass in them. You poke your groceries through one slot, the staff bring them up and they poke them back through another. You can't get chocolates because they're locked behind plastic screens. My Lords. What a disgusting way to shop for groceries today. But the staff now need that protection. My Lords that Sainsbury's is 20 yards away, across the street from the Home Office and 200 yards away from the HQ of MI5.

And it's not local London cabbies nor poor people who are driving this crime wave. I regret, my Lord. It is immigrant led. So, my Lords, who in the name of God are we letting into this country that we need armour plated glass in a little grocery shop a quarter of a mile away from this building, the my Lords we have the vile attacks on Jews in this country. Not enough has been done to stop those despicable Palestinian marches. Let's not pretend they're defending Gaza when they have signs showing Israel being pushed into the sea and chanting from the river to the sea.

Palestine will be free. Free of Jews. That is, they can lie all they like, but they're actually calling for a new Holocaust. 8 million Jews to be removed from their homeland. The British Jewish community has a rich history of contributions to the UK, playing vital roles across all tiers of society. Their historic and ongoing impact is deeply woven into our country's economic foundations, our public health and social welfare. From medicine to healthcare, banking to retail, charity and philanthropy law.

And of course, look around us politics. Jews have helped to make this country great. Perhaps in 200 years time we might be able to say the same thing about Palestinians. My Lords Jews have not knifed imams, driven cars into Christmas markets, set off terrorist bombs, or have a belief in killing people who do not share the religion. So, my Lords, I welcome the language used in the government briefing documents for the for the Kings, for the Gracious Speech. But only the details of the legislation will.

Let us see if it is a real attempt to bring back control from the terror sweeping our streets in London and some other cities.
18:04
Lord Foster of Bath Portrait Lord Foster of Bath (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords the. Government's right >> My Lords the. Government's right to focus on economic growth, but in part that the plans are timid and part that the plans are timid and in others they are frankly bizarre and wrong. They're timid about rebuilding our relationship with the European Union. Given the inhibiting red lines, the recent first quarter point 6% of GDP rise pales into insignificance against the latest estimate that Brexit hit GDP by as much as 8%.

So after the catastrophic mistake of Brexit, the government should be much more ambitious, going much further towards reuniting with our European allies to rebuild our economy and our defences. So any response? I hope the noble Lord, the Minister, will tell me whether he agrees with these benches, with Wes Streeting and possibly, though we're not quite sure, Andy Burnham. Elsewhere, though, my Lords, the government are getting it very badly wrong. They have actually said, despite the harm and misery that it causes, they want to grow the gambling industry and believe it can be done, while also reducing gambling harm.

My Lords, this is absolute nonsense. National and international public health experts believe that it will lead to more gambling harm and more misery for individuals, families and communities. And it's also economic nonsense. For recent reports all show that reducing gambling will put more discretionary spend into more productive parts of the economy, creating more jobs, higher tax receipts for the Treasury and reduced treatment costs. Now Labour has admitted they have got it wrong with the 2005 Gambling Act. Encouraging growth in gambling now would be an even bigger mistake.

My Lords, on a different subject, live facial recognition, LFR. It's being increasingly used around the country, but as the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, which I chair has regularly pointed out, this is without proper legal basis, adequate independent scrutiny or consistent national training. Now, the Police and Reform Bill promises to address this consultation has already been conducted, but while the deadline has passed, the government's response still hasn't appeared. So will the noble Lord, the Minister, tell us when we can expect the response, and can he give us a timeline for the creation of a legal framework and a regulatory body to oversee the use of LFR? And finally, on prisons last year, my Lords, the Justice and Home Affairs Committee report on prisons highlighted the high re-offending rate of ex-prisoners.

We argued for more measures to reduce reoffending, education and skills training, help with drugs, alcohol and gambling problems and help with housing and jobs on leaving prisons. And it pointed out that in particular, we need to reduce overcrowding and improve recruitment, retention and training of prison officers. Now, the highly effective prisons Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Simpson, is doing as much as he can. But still prisoners often let out of their cells less than three hours a day, spent far too long with little to do, and the Ministers, hindered by delays and cost overruns in the new building programme maintenance backlog of 1.8 billion, inadequate fire safety arrangements, with cell fires averaging eight per day.

The temporary closure of Dartmoor Prison because of radon gas and 16 other prisons possibly having the same problem, he has to deal with the uncertainty for foreign prison officers, who've only got a temporary reprieve from the impact of the new immigration rules, which means their salaries fall below the new minimum for skilled workers visas. And there is the real possibility that the measures in the proposed Courts Modernisation Bill, with more cases to be handled by Magistrates Court with extended sentencing powers, will lead to increased prison population.

So can the Minister share the government's assessment of the proposed bill's impact on prison numbers? Can we ensure that the noble Lord, Lord Simpson, gets more support from the government for the good work that he's already doing?
18:09
Lord Faulks Portrait Lord Faulks (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I was. >> In the King's Speech. We were told that the government is going to pursue a foreign policy, quote, based on a calm assessment of the based on a calm assessment of the national interest. The Prime Minister often reassures us the intends to act in the national interest. I would have thought that went without saying. But with lawyers at the helm of government, perhaps it's intended to counter the strong impression that it is adherence to international law that lies at the heart of foreign policy, and what international law is must be interpreted by the high priests.

Human rights lawyers like the Prime Minister and the attorney general. But the Gracious Speech is right to emphasise the importance of, quote, defence and economic security. We must, of course, spend more on defence. But how are we going to afford this? Britain's welfare bill is set to surge by £18 billion in a single year. This increase alone is according to the centre for Social Justice, the equivalent of 15 Royal Navy frigates, or 220 fighter jets, or a quarter of a million soldiers salaries, more than three times the current size of the British army.

And yet, at the first sign of opposition to his welfare reform, the Prime Minister capitulated with his authority now so thoroughly undermined, is it remotely likely that he will have another go at reducing the welfare budget? But even assuming that money can be found, there isn't much point in having an enhanced defence capability if the lawyers advise that it can't in fact be deployed. Cases like Al Sweeney and Smith and the Ministry of Defence have left our military entirely uncertain as to what they are allowed to do.

This has had an unwelcome effect on morale and recruitment, reinforced by the government's desire to undo the Legacy Act and drag veterans before the courts for incidents that happen more than 50 years ago. And we are gathering an unwelcome reputation for so-called legal freeloading. General David Petraeus recently observed that the current government's approach to so-called lawfare reflects a threat to national security. The security of our borders against illegal migration is, of course, a major concern, not just to us, but to other countries within the Council of Europe.

The recent meeting in Moldova created a declaration that I share others views that this is very unlikely to have any practical effect on the decisions made by courts in Strasbourg or the courts in this country. And we, of course, have gone for a maximalist approach by incorporating the convention into our own Human Rights Act and requiring our judges to take account of that jurisprudence. I do, however, I look forward to what the greatest Home Secretary for 20 years may be about to say about immigration, but I fear I agree with the Lady Baroness Hoey that without leaving the e c, I'm afraid this particular bird has flown.

I hoped that there were going to be some mention of the effective anti-SLAPP legislation so much talked about. It's a pity it's being left to a private member's bill, albeit in the capable hands of Baroness Stowell. I wish there was something positive about growth in the in the Gracious Speech because without growth, how can these noble aspirations referred to ever be realised? I'm afraid this is a speech from a government entirely bereft of ideas as to how to improve this country, apart from a certain zealotry towards international law.

It lacks a plan, and the Prime Minister now has an extremely slender grasp over its leadership.
18:13
Lord Cryer Portrait Lord Cryer (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I, I. >> My Lords, I, I. >> Rise to speak yet again about the. As many others have about the the. As many others have about the issue of anti-Semitism. I'd love to be able to stand here today and say that the tide is being turned against anti-Semitism, and that we won't have too many more debates like this, but I'm afraid I can't say that because the tide is still still running in the wrong direction. I welcome the increased powers to stop protests which threaten public order, which the government's already taken before the Gracious Speech.

But I agree with Baroness Foster that the glorification of terrorism should be a criminal offence. I'd actually had the impression that the government was going to put that on the statute book, but I may be mistaken about that. All you've got to do is look at the marches carrying those repellent slogans and chanting those slogans to see how terrorism is being glorified on on our streets. There are just two facts to bear in mind. One is on the 7th of October 2023, when people were being murdered, raped and tortured in southern Israel, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign applied for a licence to have a protest on the streets of London.

On that day. They put that application in. Two days later, the Stop the War Coalition, I think they used the word coalition as as a matter of irony, the Stop the War Coalition actually held a protest outside the Israeli embassy. Now, why would you do that? Unless you're inciting racial hatred, which I think is exactly what they were doing. By the way, the last time I raised the activities of the Stop the War, I started getting threatening emails and threatening messages from them, which indicates to me that I'll probably hit the nail on the head about their their activities, the rising, the rise in anti-Semitism is possibly, not possibly, definitely been the most frightening thing I've ever witnessed.

And I'm getting on a bit these days. There are elements in our society who, without any shadow of a doubt, have got one aim, and that is to drive British Jews into the sea. That's what they're about. Some of these elements receive support from Tehran. Directly or indirectly. They get funding and they get resources from the poisonous evil regime in Tehran, which slaughters its its own people. I'm very pleased to see, although it's not before time, that the government plans to to proscribe the IRGC, we should have done it before the previous government should have done.

Probably the previous government should have, should have, should have done that. But also we've we've criminalised them. Again, I welcome this. We've criminalised those activities which constitute undeclared links to the regime in Tehran. I think that what we should also perhaps think about is criminalising those people who've got undeclared links to Iranian proxies, demonstrably Iranian proxies who are operating in this company, in this country. That includes, by the way, criminal gangs. We're not just talking about religious organisations or political organisations, we're talking about criminal gangs.

And until we take strong action to criminalise those gangs, those organisations, organisations which are which are receiving direct or indirect funding from Tehran, we will not turn the tide on anti-Semitism.
18:17
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard Portrait Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (Ulster Unionist Party)
-
-
My Lords, I, I welcome the opportunity to to have a few opportunity to to have a few minutes in this debate on the Humble Address. Firstly, I wanted Humble Address. Firstly, I wanted to deal with a couple of issues around Northern Ireland, and the first is mentioned in the address is the Northern Ireland Democratic Scrutiny Committee and the increasing of the number of days of which they can implement or take a decision on an issue from 5 to 10. That is one of the most ineffective committees I think, that have ever thought possible.

And I'm not sure that increasing it will is welcome. Increasing the time that a decision can be taken from five days to ten will be hugely effective. I do welcome it. At the same time, the other issue was on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, and we've heard a lot from from the current government indicating that the last bill didn't have any support. Live news. This government, this bill doesn't have any further support. And in fact, even even less, if that is possible or practical.

We've heard so much about amnesties. The Liberal government wanted to provide amnesties for a terrorist back in 2001, which was then blocked. A they had given a letters of comfort to many terrorists and. And that has progressed through the system. Unknown. They didn't even bring it to this house or to the other house at all. So I do call on this government to show a bit of backbone, particularly in relation to the Republic of Ireland, instead of being dragged by the nose through the courts by the Irish government, which they're allowing them to do, they need to stand up to them for once.

These are people that have hidden the terrorists of Northern Ireland, who have murdered our kith and kin, who have murdered our people and some of their own people, indeed, Irish citizens. They claim to be doing this in the name of of Ireland. They have murdered their own citizens, let alone our friends and neighbours, and they have been protected by the Irish people at times. And the Irish government. That has got to stop. And this government must stand up to the the Irish government.

My third issue is around something that's not in the bill and I'm pleased with that. And that is the. The change any change that might have come about in the minimum age of criminal responsibility that currently sits at ten. And I'm really pleased. I was concerned that there may have been plans to change that. And I really am pleased that that's not happening. My fourth issue, and again, people will say, what has that got to do with this? This government provides significant financial support to the Scottish Football Association, and I think we are all disgusted.

Anybody that's seen the scenes in Glasgow on Saturday afternoon of people being attacked, of football players being attacked by supporters who didn't even let the game finish. On Celtic Park between Celtic and Hearts. That, along with what the disturbances outside that has left two police officers in a critical condition. This cannot be allowed to continue in our communities and particularly in the name of sport. There is now a significant test for the Scottish Football Association.

Will they stand up to the big clubs? Will they stand up against these lawbreakers and thugs and those who have no respect for law and regulations, or will he just cave in with a male sanction or possibly nothing at all? Thank you.
18:20
Lord Bellamy Portrait Lord Bellamy (Conservative)
-
-
When we think. >> About the justice system, let us not forget Cinderella, the family courts. My Lords. It's not entirely courts. My Lords. It's not entirely bad news. There is some good news on this front. Exceptionally, in this debate, I would like to congratulate, if I may, the noble Baroness, the Minister, and indeed her predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, on the government's recent commitment to complete the roll out of what is now called the Child Focus Model in private law, disputes concerning children, previously known as the Pathfinder scheme initiated by the previous government.

This new approach introduces a problem solving multi-agency approach in family private family law cases concerning children in place of the traditional adversarial model recently described by the retiring president of the Family division as one of the most important developments in family law over the past 30 years, this new approach has been shown to reduce backlogs, shorten proceedings, save costs, reduce stress and, most importantly, enhance the voice of the child. In these often traumatic cases. But my Lords, there is, as always, a.

But I appreciate that the most difficult thing in government is to extract from the machine a commitment to achieve a certain policy aim by a certain date. In other words, to set a deadline. Has anybody ever succeeded in getting the government to actually set a definite deadline by which a commitment will be delivered? Nonetheless, my plea today to the noble Lady, the Minister, and through her to the Lord Chancellor and to the government, is to set a deadline for the completion of the rollout of the Child Focus model in the family courts.

Please give the children stuck through no fault of their own for months and sometimes years on end in the family courts. The priority. They so plainly deserve. This, my Lords, is a success story. It is an answer, a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that Nothing works. It is the case that good public

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is the case that good public sector reform can be achieved, but the drive has to come from the drive has to come from Ministers. It has to come from Ministers. It has to come from Ministers. And I would respectfully suggest that the end of 2027, for suggest that the end of 2027, for the complete introduction of child focussed family courts across the country, including London, would be a proper deadline. We are not yet even halfway there. We've made good progress and great credit to everyone concerned.

But let us press on with this most important project.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I should like to add my sorrow at the retirement of the noble Lord Hennessy. He will be sadly missed. I strongly oppose the current proposals of the government in relation to jury trials, for the reasons so brilliantly set out by reasons so brilliantly set out by the noble Lord Wolfson. But I would like to speak in the short time I like to speak in the short time I have about modern slavery and the potential for dealing with it in the Immigration and Asylum bill, which is proposed.

I entirely agree with the noble Lady, the Baroness Hamwee, that there's been no
18:24
Baroness Butler-Sloss Portrait Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
-
-
evidence to show that there is any serious abuse of the system of serious abuse of the system of finding those who are victims of exploitation. It was said by the last government, it said by this last government, it said by this government. So far we don't know why, and it might be of interest to why, and it might be of interest to the government to check on the the government to check on the figures. 77% of negative decisions in the NRM were changed by the positive moment, and only six people last year were disqualified for having said they were in fact exploited when they clearly were not.

One of the major concerns is a lack of training for the police, who are the first responders to the national referral mechanism. The NRM. If I move briefly to the supply chains, it's very sad that nothing is being done or being proposed. The committee of which I. Committee of which I select Committee of which I was a member, recommended that the government looked at mandatory rules in relation to supply chains. Everything is currently voluntary and at the moment nothing is being done, despite the EU having now a directive on due diligence, that that is something, again, the government should be looking at.

There is a worrying lack of coordination among agencies with a lack of data about those who are victims, and a failure to share the data when it does actually exist. It would be very important, and I hope that this bill may in fact, underline the usefulness of prevention and risk orders, which came came in the 2015 act and are not used to the extent to which they could be. They are very useful. They are very.

They can take away passports, they can prevent people going to certain places and so on, and they could be very much better used. There have been only 243 convictions for slavery and trafficking during the last year, and one of the major reasons why this happens and why there are so few convictions and indeed so few prosecutions, is the failure to look after the victims so the victims disappear. They are not there when the trials commence, and consequently, it is that much more difficult to get a conviction.

And the failure of support for victims is really a serious issue on what we ought to be doing. Better than 243 convictions in a year. There are excellent multi-agency arrangements for exploited children. At least half of whom are British. But it would be very useful if that could be rolled right across the country.
18:28
Baroness Berger Portrait Baroness Berger (Labour)
-
-
My Lords it's an honour to follow Baroness Butler-Sloss, and a privilege to have been here today to listen to the contributions so far in this debate, especially the valedictory speech from the noble Lord Hennessy and his important call to us all. My Lords, I stand here in your Lordships House today reflecting on the King's speech, not just as a peer, but as a mother to two children who have to pass anti-car, ramming bollards, high walls, five security guards, a gated air lock and as of just a few weeks ago, a guard dog just to get into their primary school.

Why did Jewish children experience the start of their school day in a way that is so different to millions of other children in this country? Hate crime offences in the UK have risen nearly every year for the last decade, from just over 40,000 offences in 2013 to over 115,000 in 2025. Prevent referrals last year rose to 8517. This was the highest ever, up by 27% in 12 months. All of these offences and referrals are the result of extremism, online radicalisation and anti-Semitism.

These three key issues coalesce to pose a toxic and destabilising threat to our domestic security and social cohesion. I welcome the measures presented in the National Security Bill, which will criminalise the creation and sharing of the most harmful violent material online. There is, though, no specific mention of counter-extremism measures in the forthcoming legislative agenda, which I hoped would complement the government's recent social cohesion strategy, entitled Protecting what Matters. Anti-Jewish hatred is found within all extremist ideologies far left, far right and Islamist anti-Semitism is also consistent with non-ideological extremism.

It has often been referred to as a gateway for radicalisation through conspiracy theories, which so often lead back to deep rooted anti-Jewish hatred. Our understandable focus on counter-terrorism has left us without the capacity to address the growing volume of extremist activity, which operates below the terrorism threshold. The report by the Home Affairs Select Committee, the future communications hub in all spectrum connectivity, concluded that we lack a meaningful standalone counter-extremism strategy. We are overreliant on prevent and community based early intervention approaches have been eroded through underfunding.

Prevent is also poorly equipped to detect online radicalisation, despite the internet being a hotbed for radicalisation, as other noble Lords have alluded to so far during this debate, there is an increasing number of young people that are being radicalised online. X and telegram are acting as key amplifiers of extremist ideas and movements. Their algorithms designed to promote extreme content that most people aren't searching for through bots and anti-Semitic accounts. Hijacking popular neutral content posts, turning them into breeding grounds for anti-Semitism used to socialise and normalise hate and conspiracies.

The Antisemitism Policy Trust published research the other week, again confirming that TikTok is actively serving young people extremist content. A young person aged 15 interested in fitness and and male lifestyle content within just one hour being served antisemitic conspiracy theories. By his sixth hour one hour session online, he was watching videos celebrating Hitler and denying the Holocaust. He did not seek or search for any of this content. My Lords. We cannot let these extreme ideologies and their increasing capacity to recruit more young people continue to fester, to infect minds, especially when we know that more things that can be done.

Firstly, a new legal framework to introduce to address hateful and extremist groups that radicalised individuals and undermine our democracy in the same way that Australia has done after the deadly Hanukkah shooting. And secondly, we need to urgently treat big tech, social media and messaging companies in the same way that we do our broadcasters in respect of regulation. People are not radicalised in a vacuum. My Lords these online activities have real world consequences. We cannot let this continue. We need urgent

**** Possible New Speaker ****

action. My Lords. Like many other speakers, I want to focus today on speakers, I want to focus today on a sentence that would have been unimaginable in the Queen's Speech of 14, 30, or even 20 years ago. And it's the sentence which reads my government will take urgent my government will take urgent action to tackle anti-Semitism. I want to make three points. First, I want to make three points. First, I have a confession to make. Many years ago, I wrote to the then Israeli ambassador in London because I disagreed with his view, which he'd expressed that it was not safe for British citizens who were Jewish to live in Britain, and he urged them to go and live in Israel.

And I wrote to him to say I thought he was being alarmist, exaggerating and was tarnishing Britain's international reputation.
18:33
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury Portrait Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Conservative)
-
-
Well, today I'm afraid I have been proved wrong. Last year, the proved wrong. Last year, the Community Security Trust recorded Community Security Trust recorded 3700 anti-Jewish incidents. Incidents, by the way, completely understates what they are describing. These so-called incidents involve discrimination on incidents involve discrimination on campuses and in the world of the arts. They involved verbal assaults on the streets of our towns and cities, attacks on Jewish cemeteries and synagogues, and worse still, as we have seen recently, attacks and firebombings leading to the death of Jewish people as they worshipped.

These things were not happening in a foreign country a long way away. They weren't happening. We're not talking about Germany in the 1930s. In Europe. This is happening in Britain, something which none of us could have imagined when we were growing up. An unimaginable. So secondly, my second point is this. I welcome the Prime Minister's very clear denunciation of anti-Semitism, and I welcome the fact that it's been echoed very strongly by the leaders of other parties, by my right hon.

Friend Kemi Badenoch, by the leader of the Lib Dems and by the leader of reform UK. Because words do matter. And that's why I was less than happy with what the leader of the Green Party said very recently when he said he did not believe that Israel had the right to exist. When challenged, he went on to say that he did not believe any country, including the United Kingdom, had any right to exist. Well, I regard that as stark raving bonkers, to be honest.

Yeah, yeah. But what really worried me was how his remarks might be perceived, because they carry sinister undertones. They have a sinister subtext, which, however unintended, could well feed further anti-Jewish prejudice or hatred. And everyone should reject the preposterous and dangerous view that British citizens who are Jewish are somehow responsible for the actions of a foreign government, in this case, not.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. Well, this morning, and this is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, this morning, and this is my third point, we heard about the arrest by the FBI in the United arrest by the FBI in the United States of Al Saadi, a commander of an Iranian of an Iranian backed militia group responsible for firebombings across Europe and almost certainly in the UK. So my almost certainly in the UK. So my question to the Minister today, the speech talked about urgent action. I hope he will tell us in his speech what action is being planned and when.

And in particular when the government will take action to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

prescribe the IRGC. On the representation of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On the representation of the people Bill, which seeks to protect our democracy. And what's more our democracy. And what's more important than that? I declare an interest. Since I've been liaising with and advising the charity Spotlight on Corruption. There is much to commend in the representation of the people Bill, representation of the people Bill, but the question is whether it goes far enough in certain respects, particularly given the febrile political landscape we now see, with more political parties seeking opportunities for power or a share of it.

The temptation, therefore, by unscrupulous actors to give a fiscal advantage to a particular party by bending or circumventing the electoral rules on political donations and spending, has never been greater. The government is taking various measures to clamp down on abuse, but once the bill reaches this House, I will be testing whether these measures should be strengthened in certain
18:37
Lord Carter of Haslemere Portrait Lord Carter of Haslemere (Crossbench)
-
-
respects. For example, as regards foreign money finding its way into ostensibly permissible donations from donors in the UK, the amount of money that can be donated by of money that can be donated by each donor, and the limits on political parties spending. There is, however, a quite separate is, however, a quite separate urgency arising from the proposal to give the vote to 16 year olds to give the vote to 16 year olds from 2028, which is whether young people have the necessary knowledge that they themselves have stated they want and need about our Constitution, Parliament, the rule of law, the differences between the political parties and so on to help them decide how to use their vote.

Yes, some of this is mentioned in guidance on what citizenship education should cover in the national curriculum at key stages three and four, and the government have responded to Becky Francis's review of the curriculum by saying they will extend aspects of this to key stages one and two. This is good, but doesn't go nearly far enough. We know from the House of Lords Liaison Committee in 2022 that the teaching of citizenship has been badly neglected. This is confirmed by a recent study by London Metropolitan University of 14 and 15 year olds in 120 schools, which showed that many of them have no real idea of what British political parties stand for, or even what a constituency is.

The liaison committee said there was a lack of teacher expertise to make citizenship education in our schools meaningful. They should be at least one teacher trained in civic and constitutional education in every primary and secondary school. I would add that giving 16 year olds the vote means that the current guidance on the content of citizenship education in the national curriculum must be given a statutory mandate, which requires a programme of civic and constitutional education, including education in domestic and international human rights, and the balance to be struck between such rights and individual responsibilities.

This was recommended by Sir Peter Gross in his 2022 review of the Human Rights Act, and has never been so important given the starkly different views between our parties. For example, on our membership of the EC. Young people need to be taught the basic facts so they can make up their own minds and cast their vote accordingly. In conclusion, the late and greatly missed Lord Harries of Pentregarth introduced a private member's bill in July 2024, which highlighted the importance of citizenship values but without ultimate success.

I'm hoping we can do better in this new new session. One opportunity might be the private member's Bill on citizenship education, which I've been very fortunate to secure in the ballot, which will require our young people to be taught on all these issues by trained and impartial teachers so as to make their vote at 16 more meaningful

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for them. My Lords. I'm grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this House. I begin by expressing my sincere gratitude for expressing my sincere gratitude for the warm welcome I've received from all sides, and I thank the officers all sides, and I thank the officers and staff of this House for their patience, professionalism and kindness in guiding new members kindness in guiding new members through these early days. As Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, I
18:41
Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich Portrait The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich (Bishops)
-
-
serve the people of Suffolk, that great East of England County, upon great East of England County, upon the. Upon which the sun rises first each morning. I aim to join those who live out the particular Suffolk virtue of quiet service. People getting on with the task, often getting on with the task, often without applause. Motivated by a genuine desire to make their communities better places for all. My academic literary research before ordination took me deep into the works of the great Elizabethan poet Edmund Spenser, whose Faerie Queene examines some of the private and public virtues needed to uphold the common good and the bonds of society, whether biblically or classically rooted.

Virtue is much needed. Leadership in this current age needs to refocus on the common good. The social bonds and contracts that hold individuals together as communities. Of course, I include in that a matter at the heart of our debate today in response to His Majesty's gracious speech, that of justice and with a specific interest in the realities of and responses to miscarriages of justice. I thank my Right reverend friend, the Lord Bishop of Gloucester, from whom we will hear later in this debate for her energy, commitment and expertise over the years in urging us to reimagine a better criminal justice system for all.

I welcome the government's desire to improve the courts and look forward to seeing its proposed legislation in these areas. The United Kingdom has long been seen as a standard bearer for the rule of law. Yet even strong systems are not immune to error. When those errors lead to wrongful convictions, the impact is profound not just for individuals but for confidence in the whole system. In this landscape, the role of the Criminal Cases Review Commission is indispensable. It exists as a safeguard, a recognition that the justice system must contain within it the means to correct its own errors.

It is in relation to the CCRC that I draw this House as attention to the case of Jason Moore, convicted in 2013 for the murder of Robert Darby. I mentioned this matter with the permission of Jason and his sister Kirsty. Both Jason Moore and Robert Darby's families have spent the last 13 years campaigning to have that conviction renewed, reviewed amid fiascos of lost evidence and problems with the management of identity parades and vital witnesses. Jason is still waiting for the CCRC to come to a decision about sending his case to appeal.

His case has been under consideration by them for six years now. Miscarriages of justice are not abstract legal concepts but lived human experiences. They concern individuals who maintain their innocence while navigating a system that can be slow, complex and difficult to penetrate. Wrongful conviction is not simply the loss of liberty, it is the loss of years, sometimes decades, when convictions are ultimately overturned. The sense of relief is tempered by a stark reality. Lost time cannot be restored.

My Lords may be aware of previous criticism of the CCRC and the promise of a review of it by the Law Commission, since justice delayed is justice denied. This review needs to be concluded and any actions that follow from it considered with urgency. Can I therefore press the noble Lord, the Minister, for a timescale for the completion of that review? As this House considers the legislative programme set out in His Majesty's gracious speech, I hope we will give due weight to those whose voices are hardest to hear.

Individuals maintaining their innocence over many years from within prison and the families who stand alongside them. Any system worthy of public confidence must be able to correct and learn from its mistakes. In the words of Edmund Spenser, where justice grows, there grows greater grace. If I can contribute in however modest a way to strengthening fairness, timeless and accountability within such systems, I shall consider it a privilege to do so.
18:46
Baroness Hyde of Bemerton Portrait Baroness Hyde of Bemerton (Labour)
-
-
Congratulations to the Lord >> Congratulations to the Lord Bishop of Edmundsbury and Ipswich for an important and moving maiden for an important and moving maiden speech. The first person in her family to stay in education after 16. This tenacious teessider has a lot to offer your Lordships House. When Bishop of Stepney. She was my amazing friend, Reverend Alexandra's boss, and it was following the untimely death of Reverend Alexandra's husband, my wonderful friend Michael, that I learned that the right reverend Prelate was at the vicarage with a bottle of gin for my newly widowed friend.

When asked who was there, she simply said, It's Joanne. Showing her trademark humility, care, and with that bottle of gin, frankly, her practicality. She did not falter in the difficult and complex task of being the lead bishop for safeguarding. She continues as deputy leader for safeguarding and is an exemplary agent for culture change by a stronger governance and processes. And having seen first hand the devastating impact of safeguarding failures, I wish you all the best in those important endeavours and I look forward to seeing the right reverend Prelate bring her rigour and compassion that have characterised her 26 years in ordained ministry to your Lordships House in years to come.

I very much welcome the measures outlined in the Gracious Speech to improve the justice system, whether that is via changing to changes to policing or the expedition of justice. By the measures outlined in the Courts Modernisation Bill. It is clear that 14 years of austerity, neglect and, frankly, a lack of courage to pursue the evidence, had left our justice system, from police to courts to prisons and probation in a sorry mess. And I'm sorry that we've heard so much in this debate about the changes to jury systems and so little about what happens after people are incarcerated by the state.

We're all too aware in these times of the threat posed from outside the country, and the arguments to increase defence spending, to protect society, that it can be to the detriment and neglect of arguments for funding, funding commensurate with ensuring safety for people currently inside our country, both those in our prisons and in wider society. If we cannot keep people in prison safe, how can we hope to achieve any of the other more lofty goals of recovery from addiction, education, rehabilitation skills and training? This is about pragmatism.

We don't just send people away to become non-people, never to be heard of again. We send people somewhere where we send them to prison. And indeed there is legislation in the Gracious Speech in the National Security Bill, which will tackle the rise of accessing violent material online, which will lead to even more people being imprisoned under that legislation. But what happens then? In some cases, these prisons, smaller ones with less staff turnover, are able to help people effectively repair their lives in a variety of ways, tackling root causes, but in many cases, too many cases.

Despite the best efforts of hardworking prison staff, they do not. Those prisons become a criminogenic factor in themselves. Being safe in custody isn't about having an easy life. Some tabloid fantasy. It's about the hard reality of prison and making it a safe place for people to live and work. In 2025, there were 79 self-inflicted deaths in prisons in England and Wales. The rate of self-harm was 837 per 1000 prisoners. For women in prison, 1 in 3 of those women self-harmed in 2025, and there were nine times more likely than men to do so.

There are all kinds of people in our prisons, and recently this has been really vividly brought to life by James Graham's play punch. It's an adaptation of Jacob Dunn's memoir about his 2011 manslaughter conviction. Following a single fatal punch. These people in prison, there could be my child or my neighbour. They aren't just faceless people. Safer prisons lead to safer societies, and I know that my noble friend, the Minister for prisons, Probation and Reducing Re-offended reoffending is deeply committed and is managing to turn things round.

And I am proud of those achievements. But yet there is still a way to go and we cannot hope to deliver this Labour government's bold landmark commitments, including halving violence against women and girls without functioning prisons and probation without safe prisons, are equipped not just that basic thing of keeping people alive, but to enable people to live again and to contribute to society. Therefore, I urge the same commitment in this parliamentary session to pursuing domestic and indeed prison safety as we are showing on the international front.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here. My Lords in normal times. Does

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords in normal times. Does anyone remember them? I would probably focus my remarks on the Gracious Speech on a number of Gracious Speech on a number of other issues. I care about women's health, women's rights, violence against women and girls, pornography, childhood harms pornography, childhood harms including social media and smartphones, obesity, all topics I am more comfortable with. But today am more comfortable with. But today I step outside my comfort zone because like many, I am so worried about the divisions in our country.

Graphically illustrated by the two marches in London this weekend at a policing cost of 4.5 million. The growth of sectarian politics, illustrated by the election of hundreds of new councillors who care more about Middle Eastern politics than local issues, is extremely worrying. Measures to deal with extremism,
18:52
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington Portrait Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Conservative)
-
-
counter-terrorism and state threats included in the King's Speech are welcome, but surely don't go far welcome, but surely don't go far enough. Our national security, the integrity of our democracy and the cohesion of our society are all under immense pressure as never before. The extremist threat facing before. The extremist threat facing Britain has evolved rapidly and our response has not kept pace. MI5, as MI5's director, confirmed in his threat updates from both last October and in 2020 for Islamist extremism remains the most significant terrorism threat to the UK and accounts for 75% of MI5's caseload.

We are watching out, watching how this plays out in real time. With the increasing number of anti-Semitic terror related attacks, some with clear ideological motivation and links to foreign influence networks, including those aligned with hostile states. If anyone is still in any doubt about the rise of anti-Semitism, they only have to look at the stand with Us UK report, based on the testimonies of Jewish students who have been isolated, assaulted and intimidated on campus. Evidence shows that Islamist extremist communications have generated the highest and most volatile levels of activities, often intensifying in response to geopolitical crises, particularly those relating to the Middle East.

My Lords, this matters profoundly because it demonstrates that threats to our domestic security are not isolated from global events. They are shaped by them, amplified by them, and increasingly imported into our online and civic spaces in real time. At the same time, extremist narratives Islamist far right and others are no longer neatly separated. They are converging. They share common features, conspiracy theories, anti-establishment sentiment and hostility towards democratic institutions. We see another worrying trend the growing involvement of young people, sometimes very young people, drawn into extremist ecosystems through digital platforms, where Islamist propaganda, alongside other forms of extremism, spreads rapidly and often unchecked.

This is no longer simply a matter of isolated extremist groups. It's an ecosystem enabled by technology, influenced by international events, and capable of mobilising individuals at scale. We must be willing to acknowledge the scale and persistence of these threats without fear or equivocation, and equally without stigmatising communities who are themselves often the first victims of these ideologies. We need a modernised counter-terrorism counter extremism framework that goes beyond terrorism prevention, one that can intervene earlier, particularly in online spaces where radicalisation now primarily occurs.

Extremism thrives where trust is weak, where truth is contested, and where communities feel divided and unheard. And that's certainly the case today. People are angry, afraid, suspicious and divided, but still long for a country at ease with itself. They don't feel the government understands or shares their concern. Concerns they worry about increasing antisemitism and what feels like tin tin eared response to recent atrocities. I urge the government to listen to them and act urgently, or we will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

all pay the price. My Lords, may I congratulate the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, may I congratulate the Right Reverend prelate, Bishop Edmundsbury and Ipswich on her Edmundsbury and Ipswich on her maiden speech. And it is also an end of an era. With the departure end of an era. With the departure from our benches of Baroness Barran Hennessy of Nympsfield, who is a legend in his own lifetime. With his constitutional expertise. I wanted to mention that the immigration issue that faces this country, because the vast numbers of people that have come into the
18:56
Lord Empey Portrait Lord Empey (Ulster Unionist Party)
-
-
United Kingdom in recent years simply cannot possibly be integrated at the rate that they're coming in. In the year to June 2023, coming in. In the year to June 2023, the gross number of immigrants arriving in the United Kingdom was arriving in the United Kingdom was 23,000 people a week. Now, how can you integrate 23,000 people a week? It's utterly and completely impossible. And we have no meaningful, effective means of dealing with this throughout the country. We are creating vast ghettos, and we don't really know what's happening within them.

Recent attempts to get control of this are floundering, and boats continue and have not been stopped. And indeed, we have little idea who who's in them. And the gangs have not been smashed. The reason for that, of course, is that there is the incentive to come here using boats as one example, faces no meaningful deterrent, as 95% of those arriving have remained. So with the absence of any meaningful deterrent. The government has been trying, trying, trying and the noble Lord.

The Minister has been working very hard. But the truth is he's been playing catch up throughout this whole process, and I fear and Lord Foulkes mentioned it and others have that. The decisions that were announced in Moldova over the last few days will have little impact because of what we have brought into our national law, and they are only recommendations. They are not. There's nothing in a treaty and there's nothing in legislation. So the massive cost to taxpayers, we talk about the plight of many of these people, and that is fully understandable.

But we don't talk about the plight of the people who live here and who are paying for it. For instance, a couple of years ago, we're taking a couple of hundred pounds a week, a year of somebody's heating allowance. And yet people who come into the country in boats are in centrally heated hotels, fully fed and taken care of. I mean, there's a fundamental unfairness, and it's a breach of the social contract that we have between the people and the state.

So I personally have tried to get the figure as to what all this is costing. And I believe my personal opinion is, is about £10 billion a year. But we can't get. Maybe the Minister in his response can tell us. But I do believe there is a fundamental and underlying dishonesty in the way mass immigration is being dealt with by successive governments and parliaments, and it will have to stop. I wanted just to say one thing about the union. We have seen in recent days candidates, potential candidates for the Labour leadership, should a vacancy arise, have been talking about going back to the European Union.

We had a referendum ten years ago and whatever our views on that referendum, the fact was that a decision was reached, whether you like it or whether you don't. If one is prepared to take away that decision now and go back on it and perhaps consult the people, maybe not. What is the argument against the Scottish National Party? Who says we want another referendum, which was only 12 years ago? So if you have if you're prepared to have one for Europe, you're opening the door to a Break-Up of the Union.
19:00
Lord Kirkham Portrait Lord Kirkham (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. I approach this debate >> My Lords. I approach this debate in the positive spirit of one who wholeheartedly believes in the wholeheartedly believes in the greatness of this nation. Indeed, global recognition that this is a stellar place to spend your life is vividly illustrated by the demand to live here. Where better to savour world class sport, opera and the arts and no pay health service. Policing by consent and jury trial. Free speech and interesting maritime climate and national treasures.

From David Attenborough to a Greggs sausage roll. Yet we have to recognise that criminality is steadily chipping away at the foundations of our civilised society. A decline really starts with great crimes. Inevitably, it begins with minor transgressions like vandalism and fare dodging being tolerated and consequence free. And now we see a growing lack of respect for the law on our own streets daily, from routine parking in disabled bays to cyclists riding through red lights and balaclava clad youths on mopeds, snatching mobile phones to mass marches of hate, the spread of retail crime is increasing too, with a flagrant stripping of goods from retailers shelves almost commonplace.

And we, the consumer, bears the cost in higher prices for food, clothing and other everyday necessities. The last thing we need in the midst of a cost of living crisis. More than 70 years ago, I remember sitting in my South Yorkshire mining village home when a knock on the door announced the arrival of the local policeman. It was responding to a complaint of me riding my bicycle on the pavement. Supported by my father. He delivered a stern rebuke to me while my mother sobbed tears of disappointment.

It was a fine example of community policing and parenting that produced a swift and lasting improvement in my behaviour. I strongly welcome the police reform bills proposal to ensure responsive and accountable local policing and the action already taken in the Crime and Policing Act to remove the perceived decriminalisation of thefts from shops valued at less than £200, and to make assaults on retail workers a specific offence. While current feedbacks indicate that violent assaults appear to be reducing perhaps a little bit.

It's absolutely vital that we build on any progress made by having local police service, local police services which actually respond to calls for assistance from stores. It's equally vital that we also grant retailers more power to help themselves. High risk stores often employ security guards, but they have no powers to do more than act as a visible deterrent. Clearly, security guards urgently need the additional powers to restrain and detain offenders, but such empowerment will be useless without the promised investment in community policing.

Together with a quicker acting justice system and meaningful punishments. We hear a lot about apprenticeships and I strongly agree. But retail stores are providing apprenticeships that we don't need an apprenticeship in crime that escalates from Self-scan cheeks and grab and run artists to the organised wholesale grand theft of high value items from stores, the dismantling of our values is dangerous and it impacts on all of us. Low level offences to serious crime is only one small step, and while I'm not so naive as to suppose we can revert to the days of PC Dixon of Dock Green, the friendly Bobby on the corner 70 years ago, I do strongly believe that strengthened community policing and the overdue crackdown on anti-social behaviour is absolutely key to maintaining our status as a great and safe nation of liberty, fairness and order in which people are eager and proud to live.

In the Gracious Speech. There are two matters where constitutional principle relating to our justice system requires particular scrutiny, and they also require scrutiny in relation to the strength of our union. First, lay participation in our Crown Courts, the. The jury and the magistracy have been an essential part of our constitutional structure for centuries. They date back in statute to the 13th and 14th centuries. They are a hallmark of our system of justice and underpin its worldwide reputation, and give the public confidence in the
19:05
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd Portrait Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (Crossbench)
-
-
administration of justice. There is administration of justice. There is nothing I have seen that can possibly be taken as an excuse for dismantling that constitutional dismantling that constitutional principle. If you read carefully, the report of Sir Brian Leveson's the report of Sir Brian Leveson's second volume, you will see that the causes of the problem are multi are multifaceted, but each of them is capable of remedy. One of those issues is productivity, something with which we're all familiar.

The decline in the productivity of the Crown courts, measured by the time of sitting days over the last ten years, has been 16%. That is something we are used to remedying and must do. So I am glad the government is committed to making more resource available, and I hope I can have confidence in the Minister and in the government in taking the making these necessary steps so we don't destroy what underpins our justice system, namely lay participation.

Second, a constitutional principle relating to the police and the great reform that is now being undertaken. There are two of particular importance that the police are operationally independent from local and central government, just as the prosecutor and the justices and the judges must be. And secondly, the police have and must continue to have a discretion as to the way in which they enforce the law, I hope very much that the bill will underpin those two principles, just as principles are underpinned in the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005 in respect of the judiciary, I also hope that when we look at police reform, we will look with particular care at the way in which police has been governed over the past century or two centuries, and learn from the mistakes that have been made as to Wales and to the strength of our Union.

I hope the government will now see what on occasions I've raised in this House, and that is the need for devolution of the justice to Wales. Wales is a small country. It has effective and efficient courts and it certainly had them before this Parliament abolished them in 1830. And secondly, I have no doubt that if policing is to be properly reformed in Wales, it must be tied very closely to the way in which the rest of the Government of Wales is conducted.

My Lords, first, I support the government's health plans, which include a strong focus
19:08
Lord Farmer Portrait Lord Farmer (Conservative)
-
-
on prevention and neighbourhood, and I want to help them build on the integration of health and other the integration of health and other services required by the Health and Care Act 2022. We're getting there. Care Act 2022. We're getting there. With the early years in delivering health through Best Start Family Hubs. Thankfully, now in all local Hubs. Thankfully, now in all local authority areas. But by definition, family hubs are for families with family hubs are for families with all children up to 19 and 25.

If send, County councils like Essex have pioneered health care for older children in their hubs and have much evidence of good practice to share, votes for 16 and 17 year olds was a government manifesto commitment, but I cannot support it on child development grounds and it almost complete inconsistency with the rest of English law. Yes, prepared 16 and 17 year olds to take the adult responsibility to help determine who governs this country, but don't thrust it upon children. When I visit youth custody sites, I notice staff consistently refer to everyone in their care as children because they are under 18.

I was told it's not because they're highly vulnerable. Calling them. This underlines to all concerned that children is what they are surely making them. Voters would require changing the Children's Act 1989, which states that a child is a person under the age of 18. That definition is used across vast swathes of law and social policy, including safeguarding family law, social services, education as well as youth justice. It's also used by the United Nations Convention on the rights of a child. So what if under 18 seconds can work full time and pay taxes? That's about training a child in the way they should go, taking responsibility and contributing.

Our tax and voting systems do not completely overlap in terms of entitlement. Any further shift towards adultification needs to be strenuously resisted, as it's a major threat to keeping children safe, as seen when victims were blamed in child rape gang cases. Neurodevelopment research is harnessed to argue for raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility. It shows that maturity of frontal lobes, where risk management and judgement take place, is not complete until around 25. One has to ask is the government genuinely interested in children's welfare or their votes? Similarly, the draft conversion bill panders more to identity politics than an objective need for a better legal framework.

Violence and coercion are already illegal. This unnecessary legislation is also harmful. It intimidates those with genuinely therapeutic and caring motivations from engaging in any way with someone seeking help. Turning to the Courts Modernisation Bill, I want to explore how we can improve the Children Act 1989. If this government removes the rebuttable presumption that the involvement of both parents in their lives serves a child's welfare, would the Family Justice Minister meet with me to discuss, for example, improving the welfare checklist and my Lords.

Before I sit down, I would just like to say I consider it a great privilege today to have heard the valedictory speech of Lord Hennessy. And I would like to quote Doctor Emma Crewe, who is the anthropologist of Parliament, and she says that in the Lords influence depends heavily on personal relationships, reputation, civility, reciprocity, trust across parties and groups. So courtesy functions almost like a social currency. Peers who are respectful, co-operative and considerate are more likely to gain influence or persuade others.

And thereby, my Lords, we are a model to the outside world and I pray that we will continue to be so.
19:13
Lord Paddick Portrait Lord Paddick (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords, I declare my relevant interest as an adviser to the Metropolitan Police Service, and I intend to focus on the importance of diversity in policing and the government's police reform proposals. His Majesty's most gracious speech describes how gracious speech describes how Ministers will defend the British values of decency, tolerance and respect for difference. And I have witnessed the noble Lord, the Minister, defend those values from the Dispatch Box, this country's unique system of policing by consent is based on the principles of 1829.

The principles speak of the power of the police being dependent on public approval and their ability to secure and maintain public respect. My Lords. As this country becomes more diverse, the police have a duty to provide an appropriate and professional service to everyone, no matter of their colour, culture or ethnic origin. To borrow from Sir William Macpherson's definition of institutional racism extended now to other sections of society who have particularly lost confidence in the police, women, Lgbtq+ and disabled people, the police need to secure the trust and confidence, public approval and cooperation of law abiding citizens in every community if they are to be effective in the prevention of crime, the preservation of public tranquillity and in bringing offenders to justice, the police rely on fellow citizens to inform, assist and cooperate with them, treating everyone with dignity and respect.

Respecting difference is essential to the efficiency and effectiveness of the police in a diverse society. On the police reform proposals, it makes complete sense to brigade national policing functions such as counter-terrorism under one leader leading one organisation, the System of Police and Crime Commissioners, concentrates too much power and now, without exception, party political power in the hands of one individual, particularly in the hiring and firing of what are supposed to be apolitical chief constables. There is always a danger of personal or political, with a small p differences resulting in good chief constables being sacked because of these differences, and good chief police officers not applying for important posts because of the incumbent deputy has a close relationship with the PCC.

The abolition of police and crime commissioners is a step in the right direction, but many directly elected mayors are the police and crime commissioners for their areas, and similar arguments apply. This reform does not appear to me to go far enough. Does the government have proposals to address this issue of potential personality differences? The amalgamation of police forces from the current 43 has been on the agenda for decades. There are efficiency savings to be had, but a considerable initial cost in terms of rebadging and reorganising and in terms of culture and public perception.

Police officers have an allegiance to their forces, and in Scotland, many citizens felt that they had lost touch with their local police force. With the establishment of Police Scotland, when crime is lower, public confidence in the police is higher and there is money in the bank. Having learnt the lessons from Police Scotland, force amalgamations may be the right way to go. What is the government's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

timetable for these reforms? I would like to add.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My voice in expressing my gratitude to Lord Hennessy. He was a great reminder to us that our Constitution, for all its bizarre ways in which it comes into being, ways in which it comes into being, historically adding lots of small entities and having norms and entities and having norms and customs. He reminded us unpicking the glue of something can actually be hugely damaging. Damaging to the relationships of what make nationhood and and his wisdom. It should be remembered for all time.

I want to talk today about juries, but I would have spoken on so many of the aspects of the the justice system that is being reformed. But I want to talk about the folly that I think is contained in these reforms to jury trial. I was very interested in the the comments of Lord Carter describing to us the importance of education for our young about what citizenship means and citizenship education, and because they're going to be voting before long.

But one of the things that citizens really do value is that they are actually bringing something into the system of justice, which you don't get from anywhere else. They bring the, the, the experience of the community into the system. And it's that lay participation which Lord Thomas referred to, which actually enriches the system and gives trust and confidence in the system. Those opportunities for citizens to do something in the public sphere that affects the lives of their fellow citizens are actually rare.

They have it if they if they vote, there are few other ways in which they can make that contribution. And so we should really be recognising that reducing jury trial is one of the fundamental ways in which you are actually undermining citizen participation. And we talk about active citizenship all the time. And what the recent elections showed us that people are increasingly feeling that their views and the contribution they could make is of little consequence. And I do think we're making a serious mistake in thinking that reducing jury trial is going to be the solution to the problems with the justice system.

And yes, there is an alarming backlog of cases in the criminal justice system. But everyone, including Sir Brian Leveson, who provided the recommendations, agreed that the backlog was largely a result of chronic underfunding. And I see Lord Grayling sitting there and he should hang his head in shame for the cuts that were introduced in his time, because I can honestly tell you that the jury system is part and parcel of what has made our system great and has been and is respected around the world because it is the fairest way to determine guilt or innocence, and it has the confidence of the community.

I, I just I think it's wrong that we should be misleading the victims movement into thinking that this will provide speedy justice, because for each women and girls and so on, because it's a piece of spin to secure the support of a group of people who have been disgracefully failed by the criminal justice system, and they're not going to be helped by these reforms. Reform is needed, but it's not this. And so I just want to remind people that our Minister of Justice, David Lammy, not that long ago, was was saying that jury trials are fundamental part of our democratic settlement, that criminal trials without juries are a bad idea.

And he wrote a very great report on securing the support and confidence of the of minority communities. Well, he
19:20
19:22
Lord Teverson Portrait Lord Teverson (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
of the numbers of asylum claims here in the UK. And if you look at it from a per capita basis, it from a per capita basis, countries like Greece are well, well ahead of us in terms of the well ahead of us in terms of the statistics and many others as as well. But let me come on to the the well. But let me come on to the the area of indefinite leave to remain. area of indefinite leave to remain. I have in my close family a guy.

He's my step grandson, effectively who is has leave to remain. And he works hard. He pays taxes. He has absolutely no intention of claiming any benefits whatsoever. In fact, that would be against his moral compass. He is well integrated into his local community and he's a great father, and he's able to do that because he has the certainty of. Being able to remain. Sorry, I keep on forgetting the term indefinite leave to remain.

He has that, and that gives him stability. And to be able to be a very positive member of British society. But the government has plans which continue into this bill in the in the in the King's Speech, to continue its agenda of not allowing for that position to for people to acquire until 10 to 20 years. And I feel that that is absolutely fundamentally wrong. It causes cost to those individuals. As I understand it, everybody's situation is going to be looked at again after two and a half years.

That is a huge bureaucratic burden on our society and our civil service at a time when it's under great stress anyway, with backlogs in terms of appeals and the number of asylum seekers we still have in coming into the country, reducing though that may be. And I think it's particularly bad in terms of its retrospectivity of those people that are already here and now, seeing those horizons moving far ahead to 10 or 20 years. I just want to make that point that I think changing those rules in terms of years is absolutely wrong.

What it does is to move, and potentially to those individuals that want to become eventually British citizens. And we should encourage that. And wanting to become part of officially part of British society. It can lead, then, to alienation instead, rather than the integration that we want. And I ask

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the government to think again about those timetables. Yeah. Brilliant.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Briefly. To raise. The issue. Of modern slavery.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And specifically the. Proposals in the. Immigration and Asylum Bill,
19:25
19:25
19:25
Lord McColl of Dulwich Portrait Lord McColl of Dulwich (Conservative)
-
-
bill. I liked an intention to embed provisions to ensure that child victims of exploitation are identified and supported identified and supported effectively. I hope very much that effectively. I hope very much that this will include finally bringing this will include finally bringing into force section 48 of the Modern Slavery Act to make independent child trafficking guardians available across the whole of England and Wales. And I'd be grateful if the Minister could confirm if section 48 will be started as part of these new measures.

I am, however, very concerned that the inclusion of modern slavery measures in an immigration bill confuses an issue of human rights abuse with the knotty problem of immigration control, since this could deter victims from coming forward. And I'm also disappointed to hear the government speak about potential misuse of modern slavery protections, when in fact, a committee of this House found in 2024 no evidence of widespread abuse of modern slavery system as. In fact, my colleague Baroness Butler-Sloss has already mentioned.

In closing, I ask the Minister to confirm if the NRM changes will allow discretion on a case by case basis and to ensure this House that all modern slavery victims exploited in the United Kingdom will have access to support. And also, may I also add my appreciation for Lord Hennessy. I've known him for many years. He is in every way a giant of a man, and it's been a pleasure to have known him and worked with him, and we shall miss him very much.
19:28
Lord Walney Portrait Lord Walney (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords. My Lords, let me begin where the noble Lord Lord McColl of Dulwich ended it. It's been a a huge, a huge privilege to share these benches and this debate with my noble friend Lord Hennessy. Today. Let me just briefly add my own tribute and. And to draw. Much of the discussion has been rightly about understandably, about his role as a pre-eminent historian and academic on the on on member of this House, on the Constitution. He is also the country's pre-eminent historian on the issue of the British submarine programme and the national deterrent, and we owe him a huge debt.

This nation and the town of Bower and Furness and me personally, for the contribution that he has made over the years, he will be so deeply, deeply missed. And I I'm really humbled to be able to call him, call him a friend. Now, let me welcome the Tackling State Threats Bill. I hope we all hope that it will deliver a prescription of the IRGC that is every bit as strong as full prescription with a different name.

I hope that the noble Lord, the Minister, will, in his conclusion, answer the question of whether this bill will be fast tracked, as it's been suggested in the within in recent days. It is urgently needed. That has been urgently needed for many years. But the the sense of of crisis currently with the conflict in Iran and the explosion of violent antisemitism in our communities means that there can be just no excuse for delay on on this. But can I also ask the noble Lord, the Minister, if he can explain why that bill nor the.

The National Security Bill announced, suggests that it will. It will include a commitment to enact the government's also much needed commitment to tackle extremism in the charity sector, which was. It was welcoming. It's announced it is also urgent. The power surely, to. To be able to strike off charities will require primary legislation. So if the government can clarify why. There is no mention of that in any of the briefing about the bills, that would be that would be appreciated.

I'd also like to ask, what is the the level of commitment to any measures that may be necessary may be deemed necessary from Lord McConnell review into hate crime and public order? The government has said it that it will publish that review shortly and will enact a number of recommendations from it. It's unclear as to whether whether that would fit in. Obviously, there is many of us believe strongly in this House that there is a need for urgent changes to public order legislation, so I hope he will agree to enact whatever measures from there.

And also the measures that I've been banging on about in my review and subsequently on the issue in particular, of a prescription style tool, but also. The the need to have stronger powers to tackle the hate infested marches that have now reached crisis, a crisis point in, in, in the sense of the Jewish Jewish communities in Britain being under siege from all sides, from the from Islamist extremism, from the far left, and of course, from the from the far right.

These measures are deeply, deeply needed. And the government much, much, much must

**** Possible New Speaker ****

match its rhetoric with legislative action. My response.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My response. To Gracious Speech. I shall focus on what is missing soon. Lord Hennessy will be missing. The noble Hennessy will be missing. The noble Lord joined your Lordships' House shortly before I did, and was so gracious as I enthusiastically gracious as I enthusiastically presented myself in front of him, grateful that I had used his books when I had learnt at a level. He
19:33
Baroness Berridge Portrait Baroness Berridge (Conservative)
-
-
when I had learnt at a level. He laughed and invited me for tea, and shared his wit and wisdom with me, for which I will be very grateful. Remain grateful. In his valedictory speech, he also made good on the missing mention of the Constitution. In today's debate. The representation of the people Bill says it will meet an evolving and sophisticated threat, but it seems to me too little, too late. Measures are welcome on political donations, but the eco sphere of influence is well beyond traditional political party donations, social media, think tanks, higher education and the lack of supervision of companies limited by guarantee are worthy of investigation and legislation.

I think this is the influence operations that the noble Lady, Lady Manningham-Buller, referred to. Missing, my Lords, is serious consideration of the potential risks of not having a written constitution. There remains no limit to the number of members of your Lordships House that a Prime Minister could request a monarch to create the sensible amendments put forward by the noble Lord Lord Burns in the last session were ignored, and I do hope that such an amendment preventing any government or coalition government having an overall majority in your Lordships' House will be within the scope of Removal of Peerages Bill.

And yes, your Lordships House will face every few weeks a question on when is His Majesty's Government going to introduce humanist wedding ceremonies in England, as there is a missing marriage Bill? The Law Commission report was issued in July 2024 and still four years later. I believe we're only at the stage of waiting for a white paper, and I'd be grateful if the noble Lord, the Minister, could outline the timetable for that piece of legislation. Without this, people, mainly women, who marry in a religious ceremony which is not recognised in UK law, suffer a grave injustice.

This leaves such an. Is usually women with the inadequate remedies of breakdown of a cohabiting relationship or informal dispute resolution, often called a Sharia council. The last review of these was in 2018 and I would say needs updating. So I do ask His Majesty's Government to get ahead of the rumours and anecdotes, and provide clear evidence to allay or confirm concerns. The last one, by Mona Siddiq, could be supplemented by the recently retired president of the family division. Missing from the modernisation of courts Bill is a legal definition of the duty or covenant that is owed to jurors.

Modern evidence methods have changed their experience. Rapes are usually filmed or skulls can be 3D printed and handed around the jury to show exactly where that machete went in. Jurors are compelled to be there, cut off from the usual support relationships as they cannot speak of what they're hearing and and own. Are the only people in the courtroom who have no legal right to support court staff, lawyers and even judges now have support mechanisms in place. Whilst I welcome the recent pilot project, I don't think the matter has the urgency that is needed.

Having met many, many jurors who have been made seriously ill by jury service, I fear His Majesty's Government will only act once. There is a regulation 28 recommendation from a coroner. To avoid that risk, I believe a duty should be on the statute book. Depriving a large number of people of jury trials is not court modernisation. That's a misnomer. I remember the valedictory of another hero of mine, the Lord, Lord Mackay, who mentioned in his valedictory the seriousness of appointing judges in his career to the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland.

Their life could be on the line, was that is a risk of a different magnitude. Magnitude. The barristers, who are also part time judges, raised legitimate concerns around their safety if they make determinations of guilt or innocence. In these more serious cases, my Lords, it looks like Committee stage of various bills will be very busy to help fill in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

so much of what is missing. Lords, I wish to begin. By recognising.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By recognising. An important. Democratic moment in Wales. 11 days ago, ply Comrie in Wales. 11 days ago, ply Comrie secured the largest number of votes that any party has ever received in that any party has ever received in Wales, leading to the formation of the first ply, country led Welsh Government. I hope the noble Lord,
19:37
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes Portrait Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (Plaid Cymru)
-
-
Government. I hope the noble Lord, the Minister, responding to debate, will join me in wishing the new Cabinet well as they begin delivering their programme for government focussed on protecting household budgets, reducing child poverty and unlocking economic potential. The people of Wales have spoken clearly they want a fairer deal for their communities. While there will, of course, be differences between governments, there is also a genuine opportunity for constructive collaboration to improve lives across Wales. Turning to His Majesty's speech, nine of the bills announced last week apply to Wales.

In addition to others carried over into this session. I regret that time does not permit me to address them all, and so I'll focus my remarks on the police reform Bill. My Lords, I have raised the case for devolving justice on numerous occasions in your Lordships House and the Minister, the noble Lord, who will be responding to this debate, knows these arguments very well. So I wrote rehearse them today. Instead, I wish to highlight two recent developments, which, in my view, significantly strengthen the case.

First, we saw the signing of two memoranda of understanding between the Welsh Government and UK government very recently, one on youth justice and another on policing. These agreements reflect a growing recognition that the current settlement requires closer alignment and cooperation, particularly where devolved and reserved responsibilities intersect. Secondly, following the recent election, the Prime Minister spoke with the new First Minister of Wales and indicated that he is open to discussions on the further devolution of powers.

That is a welcome and important step, and just today there was a statement in the other place where the Minister of Justice, David Lammy, also noted that the door is open when talking specifically about justice. So taken together, these developments point in one direction towards a more coherent and more accountable justice system. In Wales, the Police Reform Bill provides a timely and practical opportunity to begin that process. There is broad political consensus in Wales across Welsh Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party that devolving policing would enable better priority setting, more effective prevention and services properly tailored to the needs of our communities.

As things stand, justice remains reserved, while key intersecting services such as health, education, housing and social services are already devolved. This fragmentation undermines both the effectiveness and accountability. If we're serious about improving outcomes, particularly for young people and vulnerable communities, then alignment is not a luxury, it is a necessity. So I asked the Minister ahead of the next meeting between the Prime Minister and the First Minister whether his department will be actively developing proposals or options to support the devolution of policing and to facilitate a smooth and orderly transition.

My Lords, the instability that we have seen recently is not inspiring confidence beyond it. There is an opportunity here to take a different approach, one rooted in partnership and respect. We can begin a new chapter in how we govern these islands, based on trust between our nations and institutions. I look forward to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hearing more about the government's plans in this area. Yeah, yeah. Brilliant timing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. Brilliant timing. My Lords. I wish to focus my remarks on the proposed changes to remarks on the proposed changes to the settlement rights for overseas workers. I recognise the need to workers. I recognise the need to balance compassion with control and fairness with sustainability. However, I must express my deep concern regarding the proposal to extend the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain for overseas workers from 5 to 10 years or even more.

As Lord Stevenson has just said. My Lords, these workers came here in good faith at our invitation, at a time when our nation faced acute shortages, shortage. Those shortages have not disappeared. They have worked tirelessly to support our elderly and vulnerable citizens, often in demanding and underappreciated
19:42
Lord Sahota Portrait Lord Sahota (Labour)
-
-
roles. In doing so, they have become an integral part of our become an integral part of our community, and they are no longer strangers, but our neighbours, strangers, but our neighbours, colleagues and friends. Their children attend our schools. They children attend our schools. They contribute to our local economies. They participate fully in community They participate fully in community life. They have begun to build their future here with understanding, based on existing policy, that after five years of lawful residence and service, they would be eligible to settle here permanently.

An accessible path to settlement is crucial to integration, forcing people into a state of enduring temporariness and precariousness not fully included in this society for over a decade is a disaster for integration. We must also acknowledge the financial and personal sacrifice sacrifices many of these workers have made. Many still carry substantial debts as a result. For some, for some once in this country, their exploitation and misery does not end there. Some British employers are aware of their vulnerability and abuse, the control and the power of sponsorship.

Such is the unacceptable face of exploitation and modern slavery in our country. And if they complained about their rights being violated and report their plight to the authorities, they fear being placed on the first plane back home to their country of origin. My Lords, I do understand the government's perspective that immigration must be brought down. I also understand how some of our citizens feel about higher levels of immigration. However, these levels have fallen significantly in recent times.

My Lords fairness and integrity have long been the hallmark of our national character. Let us ensure that these values are reflected in our decision making. I therefore urge the government to reconsider this proposal and to uphold its commitment to advancing integration and protecting workers from abuse, and to maintain the original pathway to settlement. For those who have already given so much in service to our society. My Lords anti-Semitism is rightly. agenda.
19:45
Lord Godson Portrait Lord Godson (Conservative)
-
-
At the moment. >> Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, this matter clearly enjoys a cross-party consensus in enjoys a cross-party consensus in both houses. But this is not simply a question of physical protection. Anti-Semitism has now also impacted upon the public sector across a range of areas, including the NHS and of particular relevance to today's debate, the criminal justice system and policing. Members of the House will well recall the West Midland Police's lamentable approach to quote community engagement during last year's Maccabi Tel Aviv football match debacle.

The handling of the matter rightly led to the involvement of the present Home Secretary and to the and resulted in the departure of the then Chief Constable. The police obviously have a crucial role to play in the fight against terrorism, but when it comes to extremism more broadly, and particularly to non-violent extremism, they also have a long pedigree of getting themselves into pickles, owing to an obsession with finding what is seen as, quote, credible partners to reach out to vulnerable sections of some Muslim communities.

Too many of these partners turn out to be sectarians and anti-Semites. Perhaps the starkest example of this was the support given by the Metropolitan Police many years ago. In 2004, under the ownership of Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, to the visit of the late Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an extremist cleric and hate preacher who openly supported suicide attacks against coalition forces in Iraq as well as against Israeli civilians. Strangely, he too was seen as a credible figure who could persuade angry young people in this country not to become jihadists on these shores.

More recently, after October 7th, the Metropolitan Police's London Muslim Communities Forum was dogged by controversy. If noble Lords have never heard of that body, it is perhaps of little surprise a full list of its members minutes of its meetings, record keeping of its advice to the police have never been published. What we do know is that its chairman was forced to stand down in 2023 November 23rd from his role after footage of him chanting the slogan from the river to the sea went public.

Subsequently, the Metropolitan Police stated that it was working on a new advisory group, quote charter, which would include a, quote, shared commitment to engage through mutual respect and inclusivity. Yet two and a half years later, that charter does not seem to have been made public. I ask the Minister why not? There are ample precedents for home secretaries to intervene when policing is getting it wrong. The then Home Secretary, acting under her powers contained in section 54 of the Policing Act 1996, commissioned a report from His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary into activism and impartiality in policing.

This highlighted a lack of clarity around the purpose, administration and governance of police. Quote staff networks, end quote, which are too often consulted on policy matters as well as on legitimate welfare matters. Since the last King's Speech, things have changed significantly. For the worse, we need to re-evaluate the government's approach to operationally independent bodies and their policies in the light of the anti-Semitism crisis, the government has made it clear throughout, through its recent White Paper on police reform that it intends to, quote, solidify the boundaries of operational independence.

The key question now for Ministers, therefore, is what such a solidification might mean when it comes to holding police forces to account for the policies that they that they themselves forge and create, leading to bias and sectarianism in their own ranks. The present Home Secretary herself has recognised the role of Ministers in a previous role as Lord Chancellor and as Secretary of State for justice. When she was addressing the questions of the sentencing guidelines. As she pointed out, it is for Ministers to be responsible for policy.

Likewise, we now have to ask whether it is to whether policy on these vital matters, including the. Including the impartiality of the police, is too important to be left to the police. Just as war has always been said to be too important to be left exclusively to the generals. The firebombing of synagogues, the Golders Green stabbings, the Heaton Park murders the whole country clearly needs to wake up to what is happening. And so the government are right, finally, to be prescribing the Iranian IRGC, who
19:49
Lord Stevens of Birmingham Portrait Lord Stevens of Birmingham (Crossbench)
-
-
the head of MI5 says has been linked to over 20 deadly plots on linked to over 20 deadly plots on our soil in just the past year. But clearly, timing is now of the essence. Jtacs have raised the terrorism threat level to severe meaning that they assess a further meaning that they assess a further terrorist attack is highly likely in the next six months. So the question I pose to the noble Lord, the Minister is, will they apply that same timescale to the legislation needed to ban the IRGC? And in doing so, what assessment have they also made of the work of the Iranian Embassy here in London, and of the reports that the Iranian embassy are trying to enrol supporters in an official martyrdom initiative? So clearly, action on state based threats is vitally urgent.

But as Lord Hennessy reminded us earlier in his valedictory speech, our system of government now also depends on what he described as, quote, the mobilisation of decency and civility, tolerance and a duty of care. Close quotes compare and contrast that with the anti-Jewish racism so blatantly on display in some of our political parties in just the past few weeks, we had electoral candidates describing people as Jewish cockroaches. Another candidate who had said, ramming a synagogue isn't antisemitism, it's revenge.

A candidate elected in Tower Hamlets who described the Holocaust as a holohoax, a candidate elected in Hackney who said that Israel was harvesting organs to, quote, alter the DNA of Zionists. A candidate arrested but elected in Lambeth, who had previously said that nine over 11 was not the action of al Qaeda but a false flag attack by Israel. What is clear in all of these instances, and many more, this is just the tip of the iceberg, is that, in fact, in this Islamist fantasy world, the hatred of Israel is utterly indistinguishable from the hatred of Jews.

They are one and the same. And so Caroline Lucas, for example, was clearly right to call for the urgency of action within the Green Party. But it's not just the Green Party. In her speech, Baroness Ramsay of War Heath laid out some further practical action that the political parties should take. And I echo the question that Lord Walney posed, which is that there is a lacuna in the law which Lord Macdonald of River Glaven is investigating. His report was, I think, due in February.

Will the government commit that if they see that in the next month or two, they will incorporate any recommendations that require legislation in one of the bills that is on the docket in this session, can they also tell us whether the representation of the people bill, which will be before us, which is intended apparently to tackle harassment and the intimidation of voters, will have anything to say about the door to door intimidation of voters in places such as Sheffield, Brighton and Hackney, who are being asked whether or not they are willing to disavow support for Israel.

If you imagine an equivalent situation where Tommy Robinson's supporters were out engaged in a similar exercise in Bradford, asking whether voters there would disavow Pakistan or in Tower Hamlets in respect to Bangladesh, that would rightly be seen as the kind of racism it is. Why should these be tolerated? This is an urgent crisis that demands action. The government needs to get on with it.
19:53
Lord Bishop of Gloucester Portrait The Lord Bishop of Gloucester (Bishops)
-
-
My Lords it is a great privilege to speak today in response to His Majesty's gracious speech, and it was a delight and privilege to hear was a delight and privilege to hear the maiden speeches of the noble Lord Lord Case, and, of course, that of my friend, the right Reverend prelate, the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich. She and I share a commitment to justice, and share a commitment to justice, and I refer to my interest stated in the register as Anglican Bishop for prisons.

My Lords, the Gracious Speech set out the government's ambition for the UK to be a country fair for all, and a place where every child is included in the nation's highest aspirations and in relation to energy, defence and economic security specified taking decisions for the long term. This emphasis on both the child and the long term is vital. Looking at all legislation through the lens of the child would do better. Join up across government departments and would also bring clarity to a long term, holistic vision and resist short termism.

Well, we don't have a bill specifically on prisons. I would urge the government not to take its eye off the ball. We have made some progress with sentencing, but when looking at matters such as prison capacity, jury trials, court backlog, legal aid, etc. it is short termism simply to act, to try and fix an immediate crisis. There is an urgent need for a long term plan which is effective and evidence led with regards to the police and the criminal justice system.

The Gracious Speech referred to services the British people expect. But for far too long we have let the public narrative and media headlines shape our penal policy. And it's therefore not surprising that too often our system leaves people stuck in cycles of re-offending. And we are not being courageous in acting on the evidence regarding what enables change and transformation. And our long term vision must be about reducing offending and re-offending, with a long term aim of building stronger communities.

It must be about investing in restorative rehabilitation, braver community alternatives, valued probation and, of course, victim support, because we cannot be siloed in focusing either on offenders or on victims. And we must be clear on the purpose of prison, and we must put relationship at the heart of our legislation to enable the flourishing of individuals and communities within a diverse and vibrant society. Outside this chamber sits the statue of Queen Victoria, flanked by the statues of justice and mercy.

As a Christian, I believe we must hold these together. Justice is about more than punishment, the Gracious Speech stated. A desire for every child to fulfil their potential. Yet we're constantly treating symptoms and not underlying issues. We need to take adverse childhood experiences seriously and pay attention to nurturing healthy relationships, which begins in childhood. And we. So we need to address all that underlies so much offending. Incidentally, this also does connect with the government's commitment to halving violence against women and girls.

To conclude, if we want a country that is fair for all, we must resist siloed and short term fixes, not least in relation to criminal justice. I urge the government to be courageous in thinking long term to ensure safe and flourishing communities. And of course, that begins with the flourishing of every child within a network of healthy relationship. My Lords in.
19:57
Baroness Foster of Oxton Portrait Baroness Foster of Oxton (Conservative)
-
-
November 2023, in a speech about the October 7th attacks in Israel, I spoke about the escalation of Islamic extremism throughout the West, the rise of the Muslim West, the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood during the last 40 years, along with many other terror organisations, had spread like a cancer across the globe. It wasn't as though there had been no warnings. In 2001, as an MEP following nine over 11, I was the rapporteur in the European Parliament, responsible for the legislation on security at airports.

I'd spent 25 years in the airline industry and witnessed a growing threat from hijacking by the PLO and Black September in the 1970s to the horrific terrorist attack on flight Pan AM 103 and Lockerbie. It should have been a wake up call, but it hasn't been. We've had 30 years of the IRA's atrocities murdering civilians on our shores. But as those threats began to diminish, they've been replaced by the terrorist atrocities we've seen at first hand.

707 Glasgow Airport, Lee Rigby, Westminster, Manchester Arena, London Bridge, reading and much more carried out by Islamic extremists. As if counter-terrorism and the Security Service haven't anything better to do post October the 7th, the pro-Palestinian hate protest started week in, week out from the river to the sea and calls for jihad, Nazi placards and blatant antisemitism in full view. His betrayer, later proscribed, took part. Hamas sympathisers and children dressed as Hamas terrorists, having their photographs taken with members of the Metropolitan Police.

I complained, we complained, nothing was done, excuses were made. And so it continues. Some of us met with gold Command from the Metropolitan Police more than 18 months ago. I asked about the threshold, which apparently, if reached when these protests would have to stop. He obfuscated. So I asked him if these protesters shouted kill the blacks, he was a black officer or kill all Muslims. Would there have been a 2nd March or any following? And I believe not two and a half years in.

Anti-Semitism has escalated to a degree I thought I'd never see in my lifetime. Attacks on synagogues, restaurants, shops, murders, stabbings, British families and children surrounded now by a ring of steel. They're threatened daily and fear for their lives. Warm words my Lords will no longer wash. The Prime Minister recently sounded very surprised when he spoke. Was he been? He blamed the far right. As usual, it appears that those of us who speak out on these issues and spell out the problem are all far right.

The vast majority of people who marched at the weekend in the United Kingdom rally were certainly not far right. They were ordinary people who were tired of living with this Islamist threat hanging over us. There were Israeli flags, Iranian flags, and every flag from every part of the United Kingdom. Meanwhile, at the Nakba rally, they were still calling for the annihilation of all Jews and of Israel, and much more. So in conclusion, my Lords, the public are sick and tired of this appeasing approach to these Islamists who actually hate our country.

So unless the government and the Metropolitan Police and this Home Secretary and everyone else involved are prepared to stop talking and take action, this will not improve. As Churchill once said, an appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last. So be clear, my Lords. Those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of us speaking out on this will not stay silent. My Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord. I very much welcome the. Security which is of particular importance to people on low incomes, and this reference to the government's belief that no child should be held back due to poverty. should be held back due to poverty. The child poverty strategy, including the abolition of the unethical two child limit, represents an important platform from which the government can now build. And if economic security is our guiding principle, it must also be the aim of future social Security reform.

The legacy of the previous government continues to be a social security system that does not live up to its promise of
20:02
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Portrait Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
-
-
providing security through social means, and the new, conventional wisdom that spending on working age wisdom that spending on working age benefits is out of control is simply not true. As Trussell warns, simply not true. As Trussell warns, our social security system should provide a firmer footing so that people can thrive and progress on reducing food bank need can be sustained. The promise of economic sustained. The promise of economic security and the chance for every child to succeed to the best of their ability, has implications for Home Office policy on asylum and migration, some of which will be included in immigration and asylum bill.

Yet the Home Affairs Committee report on the urban settlement changes, echoing the concerns of civil society groups about the impact on poverty, warns the government will need to understand and mitigate any increase in child poverty. Could my noble friend the Minister, tell us whether the government accepts this and, if yes, how it proposes to act on it? The asylum changes also spell potentially worsening poverty or even destitution. So it seems that every child does not include migrant children.

Despite the Child poverty Strategy's commitment to ensuring that vulnerable migrant children receive the support that they require, regardless of their immigration status and the extension of the qualifying period for settlement will massively increase insecurity for both refugees and migrants and their children, with damaging implications for their mental health and the government's aim of better integration. Worrying, too, is the inclusion in the Bill of a new, supposedly independent appeals body, rejected by the Law Society as an abrupt and potentially harmful change, when the priority should be improving the quality of initial decision making.

Could my noble friend say whether the government will be publishing the results of the recent, somewhat rushed call for evidence? Finally, my Lords, on a brighter note, I look forward to us receiving the representation of the people Bill and in particular its extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds, the success of which will very much depend on the strengthening of citizenship education. As noted by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. And as I'm sure the much missed late noble Lord Lord Harries of Pentregarth would have argued, I hope, too, that we might consider following the example of Wales and Scotland by extending the franchise to foreign residents, as some argued for at the Commons Second Reading and as supported by the Prime Minister in the past, there was also strong support at Second Reading for the establishment of a National Commission for Electoral Reform.

Since then, the local elections have underlined just how far the old first past the post system is out of sync with multi-party politics. To quote Martin Wolf in the F.T. the great danger is tyranny of the minority, in which a small plurality secures overwhelming power. First past the post has become suicidal. The time to reform the old system is now.
20:06
Lord Goodman of Wycombe Portrait Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Conservative)
-
-
Antisemitism. reviewer of terrorism as described it, and the balkanisation problem of ethnic and religious division. Perhaps I should say Balkanisation crisis has haunted today's debate on the King's speech and clearly concerns this House deeply. Plainly, we need a more developed cohesion, policy, integration policy and security policy, including stricter border controls, deportations and much swifter trials. We look forward to seeing the detail of the National Security Bill and the Tackling State Threats Bill. However, we also need a far more developed Counter-extremism policy, and I want to concentrate my remarks on what this might be.

We must, at the start, be able to identify the problem in order to defeat it. And a key driver of the anti-Semitism emergency here and abroad is Islamist actors linked to Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and our enemies abroad who lurk in the twilight zone between normality and terror. So the first requirement of a counter-extremism policy is to shine a spotlight on them. In other words, to name them in the annual State of Extremism report proposed by the government that will require changes to libel law, the government could usefully combine them with the action against slapps that Ministers have promised.

The annual State of Extremism report can then be converted into a rolling register. No individual, group or organisation on that register should be consulted by Ministers or officials, be patronised by government or receive a penny of public money. That is just the start the government should apply to the extremists. The approach deployed in education reform by successive conservative, Labour coalition and other governments since, namely inspections on Ofsted model accompanied by fines, prosecutions and an enhanced right to sue our Jewish or other students harassed in universities, encouraged the Office of Students to issue fines and, if necessary, hold the authorities personally liable.

Are Jewish, Israeli or other artists. The victims of silent boycotts create a new ombudsman who can probe complaints and issue fines, and so on throughout the public sector and, where necessary, in the public square. Three other quick points. First, we need, in the wake of the noble Lord McDonald's forthcoming review, to adopt the proposals of the noble Lord Walney already mentioned in this debate in relation to cumulative marches and static protests, the deliberate targeting of synagogues in these marches must end.

Second, whereas the action we have been promised to extend the Charity Commission's powers to suspend trustees and shut down charities involved in extremist abuse. Third, and finally, this programme will only be fully effective when we overhaul our human rights frameworks. My Lords extremists don't win because most people vote for them. They win. If most people say stay silent because they don't want any trouble. And when Democratic politicians lack the will or the wit to produce a plan, government can't do everything.

As the noble Lady Baroness Ramsay pointed out earlier, this crisis is a challenge for the whole of civil society. But government can do something. It needs a plan. This is a plan, or at least the start of one. I commend it to the government, to my own party and to all other Democrats with the wit and the will to act.
20:09
Baroness Chakrabarti Portrait Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-
-
May I add my tribute to our maidens and, of course, to the predictably exquisite valedictory of the noble Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield. Well, it was this. There's much to commend in the most gracious speech. Still I urge noble friends in government, and all who aspire to lead it, to strive towards an overarching narrative of hope, not just constant reminders of insecurity and threat. The public feels the news as acutely in their pockets as on their screens.

We must be careful not to keep repeating grim diagnosis without the prescriptions for justice that people rightly expect of us. So I'm proud to see the Hillsborough bill feature less happy. We haven't secured it to date, as the Manchester Arena victims families will testify. A blanket exemption for the security agencies would be no kind of Hillsborough Law at all. So where transparency would compromise, security provision can be made my Lords for application to a judge for a specific exemption.

Otherwise, and understandably, institutions close ranks to spare. Blushes not always lives. My Lords, I believe in the importance of jury trials for three reasons. Firstly, like voting and paying tax, they allow ordinary citizens to contribute to civic life. Without them, one class always appears to sit in judgement over others. Juries improve trust and confidence in and the legitimacy of our criminal justice system. Secondly, juries protect the judiciary from opprobrium, where the evidence points to acquittal.

In high profile cases, the demonisation of lawyers and judges has been an extremely dangerous trend in recent times. Finally, the ability of the jury to decide guilt or otherwise without reasons, is a precious last ditch safeguard against abusive laws and prosecutions. I have grave concerns about attempts further to dilute the right to elect a jury trial. Years of underfunding courts should not become excuse for further restricting access to them. My concerns relate to principle and practice, but also to democratic politics, to noble friends.

Really want such an open goal for far right populists. An opportunity to argue that Labour's for European rights, but not ancient English liberties. It is telling. I think that immigration and asylum is grouped with strengthening national security rather than public services or even economic security. Further words are ominous, as under earlier conservative governments, asylum is conflated with illegal entry. The desire to tighten the application of article eight of the displays some distrust of courts, just as open goals on jury trials are misguided, so is trying to compete in performative unkindness rather than administrative competence.

Concerns about fairness notwithstanding, the bulk of public opinion, remains committed to rights and freedoms while legitimate those who would tear them down. The representation of the people bill with votes at 16 and vital safeguards against foreign interference and domestic election intimidation, is an historic proposal. How wonderful it would be, my Lords, to mark a century of hard won mass suffrage in two years time with this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

landmark progressive change. My Lords. Like other noble Lords,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. Like other noble Lords, I am just keen to express my gratitude to the Lord Lansley, whom I've known for a long time. As a fellow professional historian in fellow professional historian in this House for his work and its tremendous influence that he has tremendous influence that he has rightly had in, in, in the life of this House. And I'd also like to welcome Lord Case, whom I have also known for a long time. It's a shared vibe of the Cambridge History Department.

And just to say that Lord Case, in his role as
20:14
Lord Bew Portrait Lord Bew (Crossbench)
-
-
Cabinet secretary, was a fundamental defender of the national security of this country. He was also there when the message He was also there when the message came from from the European Union. They were looking for a way out of They were looking for a way out of the difficulties of the protocol and the Windsor framework. This is at the time, actually the Truss at the time, actually the Truss government, and he played a major role in bringing back the Windsor framework, which is a difficult, in some ways, messy compromise and some ways, messy compromise and still leaves a democratic deficit in Northern Ireland, but is still an improvement.

The King's Speech has an important passage on, on, on on the Union. My government is committed to the strength and integrity of the Union of the United Kingdom, and it recalls the words of Keir Starmer when he was leader in the opposition, that in the event of a border poll, he would campaign for the continuation of the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. And the remarks in the King's Speech are in the same spirit. The most important legislation with respect to the Union, however, is the legacy Bill and the legacy Bill as an important gloss and explanation in the gloss published by the government alongside the King's Speech, and also the important and very helpful remarks by the noble Baroness Minister, at the beginning of this debate.

I still have two queries or problems, and one of them is this the the, the the, the, the legacy, the legacy bill announces a new relationship with the Irish government. But it also says there are new protections for veterans here. And the Irish government says there are none. And at some point or other, if the Minister can help. Tonight, this has to be clarified. Either the Irish government is correct or the government itself. Our government is correct. On legacy.

Another point may perhaps be worth making. I was the historical adviser to the Bloody Sunday Tribunal, and one of the things that I remember about it. It's this is to return to a point made earlier in the day, especially by Baroness O'Loan, but also by Baroness Hoey about the costs of the ICR. I am a supporter of Sir Declan Morgan and the ICR, and they need to have the money to carry out their work in Northern Ireland. But it is worth remembering that the Bloody Sunday Tribunal in which I worked, the government announced the cost 12 million.

This is old money. It cost. In the end, something like 200 million. There needs to be. As the government continues to discuss the legacy question and the money must be made of it, no point having a nice ICR without giving it the resources, but. But nonetheless, there needs to be a question, and particularly how the legal profession in Northern Ireland may or may not share in these fruits. There needs to be absolute clarity. I speak as a former chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, and we now talk about duty of candour.

There needs to be openness and clarity and transparency on this issue, because there is no question the legacy bill of this government, and it has a mandate for it. The legacy bill looks like it's going to be an incredibly expensive matter, and we have not really heard any words which explain where exactly the government stands on that.
20:18
Baroness Altmann Portrait Baroness Altmann (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords our. >> Extremism crisis, whether it is left versus right, woke versus traditionalists, globalists versus traditionalists, globalists versus nationalists. There is a growing prevalence of extremist rhetoric prevalence of extremist rhetoric and activity which is increasing social division. I will concentrate my brief contribution on the shocking rise in anti-Semitic rhetoric and violence, and I declare an interest as a proud British Jew. Of course, this represents a crisis for the British Jewish community, but it is symptomatic of wider problems in Britain as a whole.

And we should heed the warning signs that this could be a harbinger of looming societal breakdown. Anti-Semitism is being fuelled by a toxic mix of Islamist and far left anti-Israel extremism, plus some from the far right, with worrying involvement by overseas actors. We see the weekly protests on our streets, the fear in our universities, as highlighted in last week's shocking Stand with Us report, increasing violence against Jews on our streets. The Home Affairs Select Committee emphasised the failure of the current approaches, including prevent and the need for earlier intervention to tackle extremism.

Well, it may be a little bit too late for that, my Lords, but I do welcome the bills to ban the IRGC. Why has it taken so long? And for tackling state threats, it is long past time to beat about the Bush most recent anti-Jewish plots and attacks have come from Iran and its proxies. We have seen Kata'ib Hezbollah from Iraq, a relation of Iran claiming responsibility for the latest violence on our streets. The IRGC and others of its proxies are helping to fund this and are using British banks and property purchases with impunity to pay people to commit these acts.

MI5 tracked 20 potentially lethal Iran backed plots last year. There is a growing use of coordinated unlawful tactics by direct action. Protest groups linked to the Middle East engaging in extremist activity just below the terrorism threshold. But they are incited by ideologically motivated, foreign influenced Islamists, again linked to the IRGC. A 2024 Election Commission report found 46% of general election candidates had reported abuse, threats or intimidation. So this has spread to the core of both national and local politics in this country.

Why do we have groups siding with the terror regimes that are suppressing their own people with violence, torture and murder? How has this infiltrated our political discourse? The government must urgently follow through with sustained action to confront the hatred and extremist Islamism fuelling it. We need stronger powers to close charities that promote extremist ideologies. We must act decisively against the British banks that have become a soft touch. Despite reams of money laundering rules. To help fund this violence, companies House should properly coordinate and correlate names of known foreign malign actors.

Common directors of previously known terror linked companies, and I hope that we will be able to control these extremist threats, which must be used forcefully and speedily to take advantage of the legislation we have.
20:22
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords I expressed my interest >> My Lords I expressed my interest in the register and supported by the Refugee and Migration Project. the Refugee and Migration Project. I wish to to talk about the annual event for this Parliament, which is an immigration and asylum bill. But first of all, I want to say that our position on these benches is clear. We believe the British people demand a migration system rooted in order and compassion, one that provides a disciplined framework for entry while protecting those fleeing for their lives.

Whilst the government, to their credit, has reduced regular migration to near net zero. We must be honest about our national needs. With an ageing population and a falling birth rate, migration is not a choice but a necessity for GDP growth. Analysis from the OECD is clear. Well managed migration and successful integration are critical to prevent our economy from falling backwards. And we agree that those who enter irregularly and do not require protection must be humanely returned.

However, an orderly system requires a functional queue, and currently, beyond the micro French deal, no such queue exists without a legal path for entry. We cannot effectively address those who jump the queue. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Teverson, who has described the proposed bill as being flawed. It is flawed because firstly it targets the wrong people and secondly, it is applied retrospectively to people who are already living and working legally in the United Kingdom and hoping that there will lives will be difficult, which will dissuade irregular arrivals.

My Lords, there is no evidence that penalising immigrants living here legally through increased costs, complexities and barriers to family reunion will change the minds of those seeking to come here irregularly. There is no evidence that people seeking to come here regularly will be dissuaded from coming. If they see those who have been given protection and those immigrants living here legally are being given a tough time by proposing a road to settlement that favours the wealthy over other hard working contributors, the government is creating a system that suggests millions of legal residents are unwelcome.

This is the snakes and Ladders policy, which was mentioned and described by the right reverend Prelate earlier today. There is a work cloud in a recent analysis of the problem, where people were asked to name the migration system in this country, and these were the people who are going to be affected by this new law and asked to give one word to describe the UK immigration system. And these were they confusing, hostile, frustrating, unfair and an expletive beginning with the letter S, as one EU resident said, they don't want to make us feel welcome and let us belong.

And as Lord pickles earlier

**** Possible New Speaker ****

commented, just conditional Of belonging. Is dangerous for our society.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is dangerous for our society. Costs, errors. Complexities, family reunion. The effect on employment and education hampering children's and education hampering children's development are all problems that this bill will make worse, making this bill will make worse, making millions of legal residents feel depressed and unwelcome does nothing to create an orderly or nothing to create an orderly or compassionate system, let alone help the pathway to integration. We must move beyond legislation that prioritises fear over humanity and economic common sense.

My Lords His Majesty in the Gracious Speech said only this about the thorny topic of immigration and asylum legislation will be introduced to increase confidence in the security of the
20:27
Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative)
-
-
immigration and asylum systems. Nothing else perhaps unsurprising Nothing else perhaps unsurprising given the likely choppy reception the trailed proposals will have from the government backbenches in from the government backbenches in the other place. And indeed, if the recent CIS, which we have just passed, are anything to go by from the government backbenches in your the government backbenches in your Lordships House, the proposed Bill is a start, I welcome it. I look forward to continuing to support the noble Lord, the Minister.

But the present proposals do not go far enough. It is doubtful that the new Bill will achieve its objective to increase confidence in the security of the immigration and asylum systems. The noble Baroness, the Minister, said in her opening today of the government's policy. We will not hesitate to remove those with no rights to be here, as we will see, this resounding rhetoric does not seem to match the facts. Time permits consideration only of one issue which demonstrates these conclusions.

The times reported on the 26th of April and the 6th of May this year, that FOI requests had revealed the following. Britain had returned a total of 11,629 rejected asylum seekers last year. Over the same period, a total of 80,264 asylum seekers were refused asylum. The figures revealed that migrants from countries most likely to cross the channel in small boats were among the least likely to be returned home. Eritrea, the most common nationality among the small boat migrants last year.

The proportion of failed asylum seekers returned was just 5%. 1269 asylum seekers present presented in the UK and were refused asylum. Just 64 were returned. Afghanistan 7330 Afghans were refused asylum last year. Just 115 were returned. Ethiopia 876 rejected. Only 15 individuals returned, giving a return rate of 1.7%. Iran. Similarly, only 1.8% Somali, 1.5%. Even Sierra Leone less than 1 in 100. Cameroon 1.5% of failed asylum seekers returned. Even Rwanda, designated as a safe country by statute in the last parliament, saw a return rate of failed asylum seekers of just 2.6%.

But the largest cohort of failed asylum seekers in the UK are from Pakistan. Last year, 10,853 people from Pakistan were refused asylum, but only 445 Pakistanis were returned to Islamabad in the same period. This is so notwithstanding that the UK and Pakistan agreed an asylum returns deal in 2022. Indeed, it is of note that nearly 200 failed Pakistani asylum seekers were living in taxpayer funded accommodation as of December 2025. The central point is this if failed, asylum seekers can stay here anyway, then it renders largely useless.

Our very expensive and time consuming asylum application and appeals process. Further, this state of affairs plainly creates a very significant pull factor for migrants to enter illegally by small boat or otherwise, because they know, as is abundantly clear from the statistics, they are unlikely to be removed even if

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their asylum claims are rejected. My Lords. I declare an interest as a former chair of Ehrc and as a fellow of the think Tank Policy Exchange, my Lords nation, confidence and trust in our public institutions is ebbing as it does so it damages our constitutional so it damages our constitutional and economic settlement as a country. So I'm very glad the noble Lady, the Minister, identified this Lady, the Minister, identified this as a priority in her opening remarks. Britain's reputation for honest, competent and politically neutral public administration has been a prized national asset.

It underpins economic confidence, democratic legitimacy and social cohesion. Its loss has consequences far beyond Whitehall and Westminster. With 2023 OECD Trust in Government survey found only 27% of UK adults have trust in government, with Parliament at 24% and political parties languishing at 12%. This places us far below the OECD average of 39% for trust. A recent report by arch ten, called Two Britons, sets this out. It's of a public sector workers across the civil service, the NHS and education and compared that to the views of the general public to test impartiality.

It finds patterns of divergence that many of us have experienced intuitively, but had not seen through data and rigorous evidence, as in this report. The public sector, when compared with the general public, consistently hold more negative views of Britain and our place in the world. There are 50% more likely to believe that Britain has done more harm than good, not just historically, but in current policy, too. Presumably in disagreement with the elected government. For example, on attitudes to Hamas, the proscribed terrorist organisation.

More than half the general public have no sympathy towards it at all. Yet 30% of the NHS were sympathetic to it. When asked about our adversaries like Iran and Russia. A significant section of public servants hold them in high regard when evaluating fake news. Public servants are more likely to believe factually incorrect anti-British statements than the evidence showed. Beyond this report itself. Other institutions, like the BBC, have been opposed over a lack of impartiality. To Rob Burley's essay.

Only yesterday showed how the LGBT and Di agendas have captured editorial teams, where objective reporting was sacrificed in favour of a single perspective. My Lords would be laughable were it not so serious for trust in our national broadcaster. The consequences are not abstract. A controlled trial of 7000 participants found that simply being reminded of verified, controversial decisions by public bodies, such as tier two justice, were decisions that reflected precisely this kind of divergence. And because 1 in 6 people who trusted the government to cease doing so.

No one seeks ideological
20:34
20:34
20:34
20:35
Lord Watson of Invergowrie Portrait Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Labour)
-
-
The Immigration and Asylum Bill includes welcome provisions to change the modern slavery system, including better tools for law enforcement to tackle exploitation enforcement to tackle exploitation and stronger processes to identify children. However, the bill continues to emphasise alleged abuse of the system, despite no data supporting this, and that approach risks blocking survivors from support, weakening prosecutions of traffickers and failing to deliver the reforms needed to identify and support victims effectively. Measures to improve identification and support for children are positive, but the absence of provisions to strengthen corporate accountability is, I think, a missed opportunity.

Two years ago, together with the noble Baroness Hamwee and Butler-sloss who spoke earlier, I was a member of the Select Committee on your Lordships' House reviewing the 2015 Modern Slavery Act, which recommended proportionate sanctions on companies that fail to meet supply chain requirements. The government responded that legislative change would follow in due course. 18 months later. Supply chain accountability is entirely absent from the King's Speech. My friend the Minister, explain why the government is not building on the Modern Slavery Act to create a level playing field for responsible businesses by introducing legislation to make human rights due diligence mandatory.

My Lords. I am concerned that the government has dropped their promise of binding legislation on the most powerful AI systems. Even the scientists building these systems warn that superintelligent AI was. As threats to our day to day lives and national security, which is why earlier this year, I joined over 100 parliamentarians in supporting the campaign by controlling I. To address this urgent threat in 2024, the King's Speech explicitly called for regulation on the developers of the most powerful AI models. But last week's King's Speech contained no mention of the risks from advanced AI and the need to regulate the most powerful AI systems.

The speech did set out the government's ambitions on national security, resilience and sovereignty, but my Lords sovereignty and national security mean little without control over emerging technologies, particularly artificial intelligence. The government's decision not to introduce legislation on advanced AI seems a concerning signal about its shifted priorities. I also want to say a few words about the police reform bill, the move towards a more centralised policing model must not lead to the weakening of local specialist services, supporting child victims of exploitation and trafficking.

Home office estimates show that more than 15,000 children were identified, either as at risk or involved in child criminal exploitation in the year ending March 2025. Too often, children who are exploited or trafficked are as likely to be criminalised as recognised as victims. Structural changes to policing will not address these systemic problems. Policy and a culture change within the police are needed on this issue. I very much welcome the proposal to include violence against women and girls as a national policing priority.

But policing reform must include investment in specialist services, such as mandatory training on trauma informed and child centred approaches, as well as action to build trust with children, particularly those from black and marginalised communities who experience disproportionate harm and discrimination. Finally, several noble Lords have expressed concern over the future of the Union, particularly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope and the noble Baroness Foster. I agree with both. The noble Baroness Prosser rightly said that the alarm being expressed over the largest party in all three legislatures, now being those who want to leave the UK, is overblown.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope warned of the Scottish Government's plans to seek a second referendum and offered wise counsel in setting out three steps which must be taken to prepare for such an eventuality. Producing a majority in favour of separating Scotland from the rest of the UK. So although a threat to the Union is being talked up just a bit too much, that does not lessen the need for vigilance. And the government must ensure that it is sensitive to key issues within the remit of all three of those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

legislatures. I will focus on the. Gracious Speech to modernise

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gracious Speech to modernise hate crime legislation. I declare my interest. As CEO of Muslim Women's Network and Non-Executive director on the and Non-Executive director on the Law Commission Board. My Lords, the government must confront a growing government must confront a growing and dangerous reality. Anti-Muslim hatred is normalised. Successive hatred is normalised. Successive governments have failed to address this with the seriousness it demands. One of the clearest failures lies in our hate crime legislation. The law provides stronger protection against stirring up racial hatred than it does against stirring up religious hatred.

In practice, deeply abusive and inflammatory statements about Muslims, Jews and other faith communities can be made without legal consequences unless they are explicitly threatening. Extremists understand these loopholes and exploit them deliberately to radicalise others, and then go on to commit hate crimes. My Lords, if the government is serious about reform, it must implement the Law Commission's recommendation to bring offences relating to stirring up religious hatred in line with those covering stirring up of racial hatred. Social media platforms must also be held accountable.

My Lords, I want to share some examples of the impact of anti-Muslim hatred. Muslim man was murdered in 2013 and another 1 in 2017 by far right extremists. More recently, there have been attempts to run over Muslims with vehicles. 19 year old Elena Burns expressed a desire to kill all Jews, and Muslims attacked a Kurdish man in the street with an axe. Men entered a mosque in Manchester armed with an axe. 60 year old Thomas McKenna stockpiled guns and explosives and planned to kill Muslim migrants.

19 year old Alfie Coleman planned a mass shooting and was going to target Lord Mayor Sadiq Khan and a mosque. Two Sikh women were raped because the perpetrators believed that they were Muslim. Muslims continued to face verbal abuse in the streets, on public transport, and mosques are being vandalised, graves are being desecrated. Even the dead are not spared hatred. Muslims do not feel safe. Muslim women particularly, do not feel safe. We saw on Saturday how Muslim women were targeted yet again.

Three women got on the stage on the Tommy Robinson rally and dressed in a burqa with a crowd shouting take it off, take it off! And then the women took off that clothing to a cheering crowd. It was a deliberate
20:42
Baroness Gohir Portrait Baroness Gohir (Crossbench)
-
-
public display of anti-Muslim hostility aimed at dehumanising, visibly Muslim women. The action signalled that targeting visibly signalled that targeting visibly Muslim women with intimidation and abuse is acceptable. Where is the abuse is acceptable. Where is the condemnation from government Ministers or indeed in your Lordships House? We feel invisible. Almost half of religious hatred is aimed at Muslims. More than 4000 incidents are reported annually to the police, but 80% of victims don't report. Actual figures are more likely to be 2000 plus and growing.

They do not report because they see. They can see that Muslim safety does not matter to this government. Jewish communities also understand the devastating consequences of religious hatred being ignored, and they too continue to face rising hostility and abuse. I have stood here many times in the chamber and asked about anti-Muslim hatred and about the safety of Muslim women, and I get the same response from Ministers that funding has been provided for mosque security and a national helpline. But, my Lords, these initiatives were introduced by the previous government and the only change that we've had is a different service provider for the helpline.

Repeating the same examples again and again creates the impression that the government is failing to listen to the scale of fear, anxiety and frustration felt by Muslim communities. There has been no initiatives specifically targeted at Muslim women. When will the government listen to Muslim women? Perhaps the government also has stereotypes about Muslim women. They can too easily be dismissed. The government's recent definition of anti-Muslim hostility is welcome, but without implementation, without a strategy, without dedicated support, communities will continue to feel that Muslim safety does not matter to this government.

So I ask the noble Lord, the Minister, does Muslim safety matter to the government? And will the Home Secretary be making a statement unequivocally condemning the anti-Muslim hatred promoted order?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I just ask the noble Baroness to bring her remarks to an end? Five minutes. It's five

**** Possible New Speaker ****

minutes. Not for remarks. Hear, hear. My Lords, I want to focus on dilemmas around national security at home. I fear that relevant bills in the Gracious Speech betray some in the Gracious Speech betray some confusion about who the enemy is, and this disorientation can mean laws and policy that punish the wrong people. This was brought home by the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, many hours ago now, in relation to the shocking tale of the Nova exhibition in
20:45
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
London. A reminder this is a commemoration of the massacre of young Jewish festival goers. Yet young Jewish festival goers. Yet how morally muddled we are that the police put the onus on the organisers to hide their location organisers to hide their location and signage to stay safe. It also begs the question safe from who? Well, the National Security Bill identifies, quote, escalating threats such as Islamist and threats such as Islamist and extreme right wing terrorism. But I have to say, I cringe when I hear this overused couplet.

One reason the government seems far more at ease, proactively taking on the extreme right as the enemy than being tough on the far greater and more serious threat of Islamism. We had a vivid example over the weekend with A Tale of Two protests. How telling that within days of Labour's unprecedented electoral defeat, the Prime Minister's reset speech chose to assert his authority by targeting far right agitators as enemy number one. He even became tough on border control block banning undesirable foreigners, or rather 11 international speakers, including European parliamentarians.

From speaking at Tommy Robinson's Unite the Kingdom gathering, we might agree that the views of those band speakers are deeply unpleasant, and many are. But do we agree that opinions dubbed far right are now deemed a security risk? And how does treating a foundational value of Western democracy free speech as an enemy make anyone safer? Last week there was further number ten hyperactivity ministerial denunciations of just one protest and a melodramatic filmed appeal to the nation. The Prime Minister posited that citizens attitudes to Robinson's shindig were as, quote, a fight for the soul of the country.

This gave organisers far more credibility and free PR than than merited. But targeting far right threats in this one sided way has backfired. Many decent people took it personally, not because they plan to go to the rally or were fans of Robinson, and certainly not because their far right, because many, to be honest, are working class Labour voters until well, recently. But they resented that their worries about mass migration, Islamist sectarianism, grooming gangs, etc. were being scapegoated for dividing the nation and many furiously asked why was there no special broadcast denouncing the other protest? Protest number two down the road on the same day that pro-Palestinian hate fest even gained a new moral authority, taking its cue from the government in rebranded itself as hate for Palestine against the far right.

They even wrote new chants to add to their antisemitic repertoire. To quote one what do we do with Tommy's crew? Shoot them in the neck like Charlie Kirk. Hearing that bellowed out by a large baying mob should force us to ask who's the threat or enemy here? Finally, the National Security Bill also is a response to the horrific murders in Southport. Unlike other noble Lords, I'm disappointed the bill disproportionately falls back on targeting that old favourite enemy. Online content.

Cue more censorship. But I do worry too it will be a distraction from tackling offline preventable violence by the likes of Axel, Rudi Kabana or indeed Victor Calocane. When we scrutinise this bill, we must look closely at the evidence of the Nottingham inquiry. Calocane didn't butcher Barnaby Grace or Ian because he spent too much time on TikTok or X instead, at least partly, state agencies, from psychiatrists to the police, seem to have interpreted the Mental Health Act that we passed here as a signal to treat dangerous perpetrators as vulnerable, and to avoid any action that could be labelled discriminatory or racist.

Laws we pass have consequences. We should think of that seriously.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hear, hear. Very good. My Lords very grateful to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

very grateful to. The noble Lord. Reid of. The value of this much earlier

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The value of this much earlier today in outlining the challenges this country has been facing over a period of 20 years and the rapid period of 20 years and the rapid rates of immigration. And I'm also grateful and as will noble Lords be, grateful and as will noble Lords be, because I won't repeat the speech again to the noble Lord Murray just now, who outlined the number of failed applicants who arrive on boats are not removed from this country.

41000 people crossed the channel illegally in those boats channel illegally in those boats last year alone. And the deeper, deeper problem we have is not.
20:50
Baroness Cash Portrait Baroness Cash (Conservative)
-
-
Stopping the boats, which has clearly failed. But it's dealing with the system or managing the system that processes the applications. Once they arrive. It's in practice. The reality is, as Lord Murray pointed out, really, anyone who arrives in a boat ends up staying, and that's a massive incentive to keep coming. We know that the cost of this is huge. The 4 billion last year on asylum, hotels housing those illegal arrivals in the country, and the pressure on the neighbourhoods, the people who have to live near all of that is enormous.

It's become unfashionable. And the subject of hostility, as we're experiencing on our justice committee at the moment, a matter of irreconcilable difference, some might say, to express any concerns about this whatsoever. And yet the public have voted again and again and again to ask the democratically elected governments to address it. It appears that this government is hopefully going to learn something from the failures of the previous government, and I welcome the proposals of the current Home Secretary, the best one we've had since Lord Reid of Cardowan, of course.

And when I welcome those proposals and hope very much that they will have the support of her backbenchers in the House of Commons and again have the support of the Labour benches in this House. They will certainly have mine because we are already facing really weak productivity growth, mounting public debt and rising pressure on public services. British people are some of the most welcoming and tolerant in the world. I walked this weekend from the National Gallery to see seeing an exhibition through Chinatown on the way home, and afterwards we went to eat Indian food.

It's the most fabulously tolerant and diverse country, but we cannot sustain the pressure on our resources and the pressure that ordinary people are feeling in their neighbourhoods, and we have to listen to people who have told us what they want to happen. We've seen it with the Brexit vote, then we've seen it with the vote in 2019 and again in 2024, when Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, promised to smash the guys. And I'm not saying that in any way to score political points, it's incredibly difficult to stop those votes.

But these proposals by the current Home Secretary are reasonable and overdue, and they should be supported, and I very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

much hope they will be. I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will. Focus on immigration, as you would expect, and I hope my voice would expect, and I hope my voice will return. It disappeared. And my Lord, it's increasingly clear that Lord, it's increasingly clear that the sheer scale of immigration has now reached the point at which it is changing. The whole nature of is changing. The whole nature of our country, and indeed threatening serious social tensions. The riots nearly two years ago in Southport and elsewhere, as well as recent attacks on Jews, are an indication of the underlying tensions that already exist.

Looking back in time, the 20 years between 2001 and 2021 saw the proportion of white British in the UK fall from 87.5% to just under 75%. Furthermore, the
20:53
Lord Green of Deddington Portrait Lord Green of Deddington (Crossbench)
-
-
non-white proportion of the population tripled from 6% in 1991 population tripled from 6% in 1991 and 18.3% in 2021. As for the and 18.3% in 2021. As for the overall population of the UK, it increased by 8 million, of which increased by 8 million, of which nearly 7 million was due to immigrations to immigrants and their children. We can't get confine our discussion of immigration to the detail. These basic major facts must be widely understood and acted on.

My Lords. The pressures I just described are without precedent. UK net migration in the year to mid 2023 was close to 1,000,000 in 1 year, close to 1 million nearly the population of the city of Birmingham. Now those numbers have declined substantially in recent years, but nonetheless, it's an indication of the extent to which, frankly, the previous government lost control of the borders and the present government is struggling. If it's if it's really serious about it. Why not? Meanwhile, the birth rate of the white British population has fallen sharply.

The reasons for this are not clear. But if it stays very low and if net migration remains high, it will bring forward the day when the white British will become a minority in England and Wales. That might sound an exaggeration, but actually based on some very conservative estimates of the. The numbers. And indeed. Such rapid population growth. Which the Home Office barely mentioned, would have severe social and economic impacts, with serious implications for the future stability, cohesion and the future stability, cohesion and the many.

Thank you. I'll start that again. I'm sorry. My voice is going. Such rapid population growth, which the Home Office barely mentioned, would have severe social and economic impacts, with serious implications for the future stability, cohesion and indeed for the very nature of our society. Indeed, this is already happening as the pace picks up. And meanwhile we are importing divisions and conflicts from countries where internecine internecine strife is endemic. My Lords it's now very nearly 25 years since I co-founded Migration Watch together with Professor David Coleman of Oxford University.

That work is now cleared, now chaired by ALP Mehmet, and remains as vital as ever for the future of this country. I hope, therefore, that this House will soon engage on these massively

**** Possible New Speaker ****

important issues for our future. Lords. I'm pleased. To speak in this debate, and I'll talk about briefly about two I'll talk about briefly about two topics one home Office and one Ministry of Justice, if I have time. The first is the proposed police reforms, always a controversial reforms, always a controversial topic whenever raised by any government. But for me, speaking as
20:57
Lord Bach Portrait Lord Bach (Labour)
-
-
government. But for me, speaking as the only member of either House to have served as an elected police and crime Commissioner and given their abolition coming in 2028, probably the only one ever. Perhaps I may even be a quiz question in time to come. Who knows? I have to say, I believe the time for reform, for police reform has come. 43 separate police forces in England and Wales are frankly too many, of course, important regional policing has been around a long time dealing with serious crime.

But some rationalisation is clearly necessary. And with the reorganisation of local government, this is probably the right time to act. But. And this is a but there is a great amount of local admiration and pride wrestling with the achievements, services and traditions of each one of these individual police forces, and Leicestershire, where I come from, is no exception. Therefore, when reform comes and it will. It's crucial in my view, that it's not implemented in some too heavy handed a manner.

It must not tread on local traditions and local pride. And that's why I think the noble Lord Hogan-Howe and his committee and the government have a really tricky and difficult chance, a difficult job to get that balance right. And I hope the this House will help them. Part of me, of course, regrets the abolition of police and crime commissioners, but frankly, I am not surprised. I love my five years doing the job and was privileged to do it. What matters, though, now is the future.

How will the question for my noble friend, how will the new piecing and crime boards be constituted and how are they to function? Much depends on getting that right as well. My second subject. Really exciting to settlement are to proposals relating to that subject. In immigration. There are still in my from what I believe, decisions for the government to take as to how the legislation is going to work, I don't think final decisions have been taken.

It may be. My noble friend again can put me right. But in my view that one proposal should be dropped now straight away if possible. And here I do share the views of the noble Lord Lord Teverson and Lord German which have been expressed earlier. I wouldn't put it quite like they put it, perhaps because I'm a loyal government backbencher, but I would say their point is well made as far as I'm concerned, and that the plan to change the rules so that migrants who are already in the country, who have lived here, brought up families, worked hard, behaved well, who are told, who were told that after five years they'd be entitled to indefinite leave to remain or settlement, will have to wait ten years before that event occurs.

That change to me if it's carried out and I very much hope that it won't be, seems to me to be grossly unfair to those individuals, and maybe unlawful too. principle.
21:01
Lord Morse Portrait Lord Morse (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords in the Gracious Speech we hear once again the aspiration for a country that is fair for all, a nation in which opportunity is widely shared, justice is consistently applied in. Every citizen feels that they belong. It is powerful stuff, and I doubt that anybody would disagree with it. But the real question is, is it borne out in reality? Do we actually deliver on it? If we're to test that that test honestly, we should begin with a hard case.

And I can't think of a harder case than the Windrush generation. One of the most troubling scandals in recent public life here were citizens who came to this country, often at its invitation, who contributed over decades to our economy, our public services, our communities. And yet many found themselves wrongly classified, wrongly excluded, and in some cases subject to profound injustice. This was not simply an administrative error. It was a systemic error, one which took precedent, precedent, process over people in which warning signs were insufficiently heeded.

The lesson here is not only about correcting past wrongs important where that is, but embedding a deeper awareness across government of the human consequences of policy, the country that is genuinely fair for all must ensure that its systems are not only efficient, but humane and not only consistent, but sensitive to where that consistently consistency involves injustice, that requires a culture that's both accountable and willing to question itself, and where restitution happens faster than a snail's pace, which is than a snail's pace, which is certainly applicable to.

To this to delayed and not administered is fairness an upsurge of anti-Semitism? This is not an abstract concern. It is about Jewish citizens being able to feel safe in their daily going about their daily lives, whether they can participate fully in public life without fear, and whether long standing forms of prejudice are being sufficiently challenged wherever they appear. Anti-Semitism, like all forms of hatred, does more than does more than harm those directly targeted. It undermines the fabric of trust upon which a fair society depends, as a society cannot be credibly fair.

If a group such as our Jewish citizens is persistently exposed to violence, hostility and exclusion. Addressing this requires not only firm enforcement of the law, but a clarity of leadership and consistency of principle, especially when those principles are inconvenient to assert. Alongside these issues, we should also reflect on the broader condition of our political life. In recent years, we've seen a notable degree of churn and instability, frequent changes in leadership, shifts in policy direction, and increasingly hostile, fragmented and sometimes scandal driven public discourse.

This looks increasingly like instability rather than normal democratic change, and the instability undermines confidence, not only confidence in capital markets and business, but confidence among the citizens of this country, who, after all, have no choice but to be very deeply dependent on government for the services it provides, both during during their life as a whole, and particularly when they're vulnerable at certain points. How confident are they of the government will come across with the senses and the support they require? My Lords the aspiration of a country that is fair to all remains both right and necessary, but its credibility will be judged not by its wording but by its application, by not by how faithfully we learn from.

We will learn from the past failures such as Windrush, and how firmly we confront prejudice in all its forms, particularly anti-Semitism, and by how effectively we bring stability and consistency to our political life. Fairness is not a slogan. It should be something which affects every aspect of our activities.
21:06
Lord Ranger Portrait Lord Ranger (Conservative)
-
-
My Lord, I'm encouraged by the >> My Lord, I'm encouraged by the King's speech that there will be strong measures to tackle racism, strong measures to tackle racism, in particular anti-Semitism. You will agree that the government, first and foremost duty is to first and foremost duty is to protect British citizens. In the wake of the attack in Golders Green on two innocent members of the British Jewish community, it is time we stop importing conflict into our country with serious consequences to our race relations and social cohesion.

I'm not a Jew, but I acknowledge the contribution of this tiny community makes to the world. Jewish individual have won 220 Nobel Prizes in economics and Science between 1901 to 2025. That is about 22% of all Nobel laureates have Jewish roots, while the Jewish population worldwide is less than 0.02%. As a result, they have touched the life of almost everyone in the world, including including those who wish to harm them. It is sad indictment of our nation that high achieving Jewish students are scared for their lives in our colleges and university.

This is the time when students should cherish their journey of acquiring knowledge to serve humanity. Britain has historic links with many countries around the world, and citizens of those countries are now British citizens. Most of them are making a positive contribution. However, we are not obliged to turn Britain into a war zone by allowing rivalries between nations and bringing their conflict into the United Kingdom, affecting the lives of every British citizen. No, no, not to mention the colossal cost to the of the policing disputes.

Our police. Our police forces are under enormous strain to maintain law and order at home and to ask them to take on additional responsibility of dealing with international dispute as well as is not sustainable as a result of a result of foremost duties to maintain cordial relationship among our citizens citizens by preventing foreign foreign rivalries from becoming a cause of conflict in the United Kingdom. We now have a king, one king, and one country. As a result, we have become one.

We must keep those influences out of our nation that divide us. The role of every government is to instil British values in new arrivals, so that they integrate easily into our society and make the most of what Britain has to offer. The qualities of tolerance, respect for every faith, respect for women, and for the role of. For the rule of law have made us a great nation in the world. Britain must ensure that every citizen move in the same direction to maintain social cohesion and keep our country functioning in perfect harmony.

We should apply the rule equality and rigorously to every community and every faith to move our nation forward with minimum diversion. We must avoid costs that burden the police and taxpayers and above all, create animosity and disharmony among our own citizens with dire consequences to us and our next generation. Finally, King mentioned that two state solution in the Middle East is the way forward. Rival forces should be encouraged to promote peaceful coexistence as death and destruction.

Do not ban any benefit any, anyone. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I too. Thank the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield for his Hennessy of Nympsfield for his brilliant valedictory. He will be greatly missed both for the warmth greatly missed both for the warmth of his company and for his combination of erudition and deep understanding in contributions not understanding in contributions not only here but to our national debate. He warns us to take care, to protect and nourish our Constitution and how right he is. We also enjoyed two excellent maiden speeches the philosophical approach of the noble Lord Lord Case to the working of our Constitution, and the clear commitment to fairness and justice of the right reverend Prelate.

The Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, who also reminded us that the sun rises first over Suffolk. Both demonstrated the qualities they will each bring to our future debates. My Lords, the Hillsborough Law Bill has been a long time coming, but we fully support it. At last, public officials will have a specific duty to tell the truth about mistakes made unchecked, faults and tragedies suffered. In consequence, the offences of misleading the public and misconduct in public office should reinforce accountability and reduce the culture of cover up and self-exculpation.

That is its very opposite. The increase in legal aid for inquests should also help level the playing field between bereaved families and those allegedly responsible for their loss. We support the principles of the National Security Bill and the Tackling State Threats Bill that we will always take care to protect individual liberties. My Lord, central to today's debate has been the emphatic recognition of the scourge, even in our still overwhelmingly tolerant and inclusive country of widespread antisemitism, so powerfully expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, and echoed by the noble Lords Lord Reid, Lord Pickles and very many others.

Noble Lady Baroness Gohir also reminded us of the appalling prevalence of anti-Muslim hostility. My Lords the proscription of the IRGC long demanded by us but resisted in the Crime and Policing Act through three rounds of ping pong, but now at last promised by the government, will demonstrate our commitment as Lord Cryer, Lord Sherbourne, Lord Stevens of Birmingham and others have said, the evidence of Iranian involvement in anti-Semitic attacks in the UK is overwhelming and now unchallengeable on slaps.

Yes, we will support Baroness Stowell in her Bill to restrict this abuse, and we urge the government to support her to. We have long called for control of the bullying, use of threatened or actual litigation to close down legitimate criticism. My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford previously introduced a bill on slabs. We welcome the
21:13
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
commitment to increased investment in criminal justice, but the proposed restrictions of jury trials are wholly out of kilter. With that commitment, the With that commitment, the government claims that the right to jury trial would only be minimally affected. Certainly, 90% of criminal trials are heard by magistrates. They include nearly magistrates. They include nearly all motoring offences. But the government's proposals are concerned with serious offences. However, Ministers may try to underplay them. How can the government justify denying citizens of unblemished record a jury trial for almost any offence of dishonesty? And on what criterion? On an arbitrary assessment that a three year sentence is likely so my Lords, a seasoned criminal with a long criminal record, is to be permitted a jury trial, while a person of good character who stands to lose career, family, friends, self-esteem and mental health if convicted of theft is not the reason because the seasoned criminal is at risk of three years plus, whereas the person of good character is not my Lords judges differ.

A hearing before a prosecution minded judge is a world away from a hearing before a different, more sympathetic judge. But these differences between judges cannot be eliminated in the essentially human world of judicial decision making. On guilt or innocence, judges cannot leave their differing classes, lifestyles and racial prejudices outside court. So in these proposals, we have the perfect recipe for unfairness and widespread resentment. The virtue of jury trial my Lords is precisely that human differences are largely ironed out by the collective decision making of a jury of 12.

In the privacy of the jury room. Rightly, we never get to know how jury decisions are reached, but we do know that both criminal lawyers and the public at large respect and trust the jury process far more than they do the individual decisions of judges. Juries are an essentially democratic institution, bringing lay decision making into our justice system, a point powerfully made by the noble and learned Lord Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, Baroness Bennett, Baroness Chakrabarti and others.

Public trust in juries is further enhanced by the racial and gender diversity of juries, and these proposals represent the most extraordinary about turn by David Lammy, who in his 2017 review described juries as a major protection of defendants against racial disadvantage. Now the government relies on the need to reduce the backlogs and waiting times for trials caused by years of under-resourcing by previous governments. Certainly, we must radically cut the backlogs and waiting times to trial.

The delays are intolerable. But attacking the jury system as a response is a desperate counsel of despair. And in reality, there is no convincing evidence that these restrictions would indeed reduce waiting times. The Criminal Bar Association has demonstrated that the government's impact assessment overstates the cuts in waiting times by a factor of two. The Institute for government assessed the reduction to be achieved as negligible. Furthermore, no one has been able to cost the extra time to be needed by judges to write reasoned judgements for every verdict, and no one has assessed the likely number of extra appeals from disputed judicial convictions or the extra time they would involve.

My Lords, we have done so little to tackle the waiting lists by other, more sensible means. We've had an artificial cap on sitting days that's now thankfully abandoned. And as the noble Lord Lord Wolfson pointed out, that step is already reducing waiting times. Then successive governments have allowed the court estate to fall into dreadful disrepair, leaving courts unusable and shuttered. We have failed properly to resource sufficient judges or lawyers of high quality to deal with cases efficiently.

As Kirsty Brimelow KC, the Bar Council chair, Trenchantly, argues priority listing of cases comprising vulnerable witnesses is an approach that has already been shown to reduce delays. In these cases, there is growing evidence that the Crown Court backlog is being brought down simply by the action of opening up closed courtrooms. Then we have pre-trial systems that are inefficient and often paper based, when they should be digital. We regularly have cases adjourned and days wasted for lack of counsel to represent the parties, because the work is paid too little to be viable.

We still have the absurd position that defendants in custody are being brought to court late or not at all, causing lost court days. The combination of all these inefficiencies has brought judges average sitting times per day, down from 3.8 hours to 3.2 hours since 2016 2017, restoring that to 3.8 hours, an increase of 18.75%, would massively outweigh any possible cut in waiting times from these proposals. Furthermore, all these trials have to be paid for eventually, so the cost of accelerating trials is only deferred by delays not avoided.

The exception to that is that it is sadly true that some victims feel driven by despair to abandon cases, because the waiting for trial is interminable. But that, my Lords, is clearly not an acceptable way of saving money. The Liberal Democrats propose for courts to sit on two trials in a day with different judges and juries, in two sessions for 3.5 hours or so in the morning, and the same in the afternoon. The current 4.5 hour or so sitting day is about the maximum length for witnesses and juries, concentration and lawyers preparation for the next day.

With two sessions a day, juries would work half days, so jury service would be less of a burden. Court staff and buildings would be better used. About 50% more trials could be heard. The increase in immediate cost would be offset by savings later. Two session days were successfully trialled during Covid and greatly increased the throughput of trials. The so-called Maxwell hours single sessions for a single session, four hour days worked for the Maxwell fraud trial in the 1990s.

My Lords, there is much else we can do. Some minor offences could be redesignated as summary only triable only by magistrates, possibly. Also, some complex fraud cases could be tried by judge alone if the defendants consented, which in some cases there might. But, my Lords, there really is no argument for hacking away at the jewel in the crown of our criminal justice system in a fruitless exercise that will be profoundly damaging when there is so much else that could be done.

My Lords. It is a real pleasure to close this debate on behalf of the opposition, and as ever, I would like to express my gratitude to His Majesty the King for delivering the gracious speech. My Lords. I begin by congratulating the noble Lord Lord Case and the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, on their excellent maiden speeches. And if that is a taste of what is to come, then we are exceedingly fortunate. I also congratulate the noble Lord Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield on his valedictory speech, and wish him well and many years of enjoyment outside his Lordship's house.

Your Lordships' House my Lords. The country was promised tough action to smash the gangs and bring down illegal migrant arrivals. We were promised that Labour would take back our streets. We were promised a government that would put our national security first. And yet what has actually been delivered has illegal immigration come down? Have the gangs been smashed? Do British people feel their streets are safer? Well, in recent in recent campaign, I have to say that the answer is unfortunately resounding no.

On the doorstep, small boat arrivals are at their highest ever level. 77,076 people have crossed the channel since this government took office, a significant increase. Far from
21:23
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
reducing small boat crossings, the actions taken by the government have increased them. Now the noble Lord, the Minister, of course, talks up the government's record on increasing returns, but he will know that the vast majority of that increase has come from voluntary returns, not enforced deportations. returns, not enforced deportations. Labour, of course, ripped up the Rwanda deal immediately upon entering office and have been floundering ever since. But we know now that the government is exploring a similar system. So would it not have made more sense to persist, perhaps, with Rwanda deterrent, which was oven ready rather than unceremoniously ending it before it had even started? In the last session, we passed the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act.

It contains some measures that we supported, but as I warned then, it is nowhere near strong enough to get a grip of the scale of the problem we face. And we heard the government boast about their new counter-terror like powers for border officers. But at the same time, they repealed the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and refused to back our plans to deport all illegal migrants within one week and leave the ECHR. The latest crime statistics do offer the government some solace, but overall police numbers are down.

There has been a reduction in the police workforce of some 1334 as of the 30th 30th September 2025, compared to March 2025. What about the government's Neighbourhood Policing programme coming along? How is that coming along? Well, according to the police workforce data, they have hired approximately 2500 new neighbourhood officers. But we were promised. But were we not promised 13,000 by the end of this Parliament? My Lords if growth continues at its current rate, then the government will almost certainly not hit their target by 2029, much like their promise to build 1.5 million homes up here.

This is just another target that this government will fail to deliver on. And on the issue of policing, I was heartened to hear the noble and learned Lord Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd talk about police discretion and police independence, something which I fear has disappeared almost. And I, on the other aspect of his speech, I'm afraid I have to disagree when it comes to devolving policing to Wales. However, I want to particularly express our support for the measures to increase the baseline qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain, introduce the earned settlement pathways and make refugee status temporary.

However, we know from the experience of the last session that the government has struggled immensely with getting its agenda passed its own backbenches. There have already been U-turns in winter fuel payments, welfare reform and business rates for pubs that were forced by the Parliamentary Labour Party and resistance from government backbenchers to the indefinite leave to remain reforms remain. Reforms is already palpable and not content with torpedoing the efforts of the previous government to enact the wishes of the British public and end illegal migration, the sort of left wing zealots on the Labour backbenches now want to torpedo their own government's very sensible and, I would say, vital immigration reforms.

So in a rare turn of events, I would say to the noble Lord, the Minister, I genuinely hope the government succeeds. The Home Secretary is to be commended for having the courage to propose these reforms, and I sincerely hope the government has the backbone to stand up for what is right and face down the challenges and where they face difficulty. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said, we on these benches stand ready to help the government pass the immigration and asylum reforms.

That does not mean we will not challenge the government and seek to amend the Immigration and Asylum Bill. When it comes to your Lordships House, and I have been clear for many months now that we do not believe the government's plans go far enough. They are a welcome start, but these measures alone will not be enough to tackle the scale of the problem. Unfortunately, although predictably, this government does not have the vision nor the political will to do what is necessary.

We know the Immigration and Asylum Bill will seek to reform the domestic interpretation of the qualified rights under article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights, but this is merely tinkering around the edges. And if we alter our interpretation of article eight illegal migrants, human rights lawyers and immigration advisers will simply turn to other parts of the convention, such as the absolute rights under article three and four to prevent their legitimate deportation. So the only solution to take back control of our laws is to leave the ECHR in its entirety and to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998.

There is no other way. Until we do that, until we end the legal merry go round of appeals through the immigration tribunals and judicial review, we will not be able to end the crisis at the border and restore order to our system. And that is why, in our alternative King's Speech, we have a fully worked out plan to leave the ECR and the European Convention on Action Against Trafficking, repeal the Human Rights Act, ban illegal migrants from obtaining asylum, and deport them within a week, and end all judicial review and legal appeals for these cases.

And the noble Lord, the Minister can rest assured that we will be bringing amendments forward to that effect. But the government's failure to do to not just extend to immigration and border security crime, remains a deep and growing concern to many. People no longer believe that the law operates swiftly, visibly or indeed fairly to many offenders regard punishment as uncertain and deterrence as negligible. So what's the government's response? A program that appears increasingly to confuse administrative reform with public protection.

The government has introduced their plans to limit our ancient right to jury trials, already referred to by a number of noble Lords this evening, and restructure the courts, we hear the endless drone of the managerialist talking of modernisation and efficiency, as if modernisation has ever solved a problem. But victims of crime do not lie awake at night worrying about administrative structures. They worry about whether criminals will be caught, prosecuted and punished. And unfortunately, we know that under this government, thousands of criminals have been released from prison and thousands more will never even set foot in one.

The Sentencing Act, passed in the last session, means that the vast majority of short sentences have been abolished. So in future, shoplifters will almost never see the inside of a cell and even some sexual offenders and domestic abusers will instead be let out to roam the streets. This does not seem like the action of a government that is determined to make the British public safer. And on that note, I wholeheartedly echo the comments made by my noble friend Lord Wolfson, triggered by the appalling rise in anti-Semitism.

And I'm sure the noble Lord. The Minister will have seen the excellent recent report from Standwithus, which shows that Jewish students are being followed at home but are being followed home, abused on the streets and sent death threats by their fellow students at our universities already referred to by the noble Baroness, lady, ladies, ladies notes that report lays bare the sheer scale of anti-Semitism among students and. Let us remember these are very. The very same people who claim to be anti-racist.

They rally against anyone they perceive to have done or said something racist, and yet they think it perfectly acceptable to abuse and intimidate Jewish people. It is evidently the case that for some people it's not racism if it's directed at Jews. So I asked the noble Lord, the Minister, what interaction is there between the Home Office and the Department for education to address this? Now, my Lords, in what is perhaps another olive branch to the Minister, it is welcome to see the inclusion of the Tackling State Threats Bill and the National Security Bill.

I'm sure the noble Lord. The Minister will not have forgotten our efforts last session to force the government to prescribe the IRGC. I once again thank the Liberal Democrats, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley on Thames, for their support in that. And whilst I remain unconvinced that a specific regime is required to ban organisations such as IRGC and disappointed that it took the government so long, it is nonetheless welcome to see that the government has signalled its intention to make good on its word, and we have offered to help the government expedite this legislation to ensure the IRGC and other entities that seek to promote Islamist terror and anti-Semitic hatred on our streets are swiftly prohibited, and so those who support them are appropriately punished.

And when the government acts, however late that is in the national interest, the Conservative Party will support it. But I would not want the noble Lords Minister to start thinking that any of this would be easy for him. Oh no. For whilst we will support many of the immigration and asylum. Reforms, and whilst we will help the government pass the State Threats Bill, I remain resolute in my criticism of the government's record. Too much of what they have announced is too little, too late.

They whisper warm words about ridding the country of the scourge of anti-Semitism, anti-Semitism. They refuse to acknowledge that the problem is with Islamist extremism. They bury their heads in the sand. When small boat crossings reach a record high, they free thousands of convicted criminals and then legislate to prevent even more from being put behind bars. And they still believe that passing ever more legislation is a substitute for political resolve. But my Lords, the problem is not a shortage of acts of Parliament is a shortage of political will, of competence and of street strategic direction.

And we were told that the creation of a border security command would transform enforcement. We were told that enhanced powers and data sharing arrangements would dismantle organised immigration crime. Yet the criminal gangs are still flourishing, crossings persist and confidence in the system continues to erode. My Lords this country deserves better than perpetual crisis management masquerading as reform. It deserves a government willing to make difficult decisions so the government may announce bills in abundance. But until it demonstrates the courage and competence to enforce the laws already on the statute book and to do what is necessary to regain control of our borders, than the British people will remain

**** Possible New Speaker ****

unconvinced. Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well. It's it's a pleasure to be able to wind up this aspect of the to wind up this aspect of the Gracious Speech and to listen to the contributions that have been made over the six or so hours that made over the six or so hours that we've had this discussion to date. I want to begin, if I may, by just paying tribute to the noble Lord paying tribute to the noble Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield for both his service, for his award of the Garter, for his statement that politics of decency should prevail and for his work to date.

If he can write a book for me now on how to respond to 75 contributions over a six hour period, that would be really helpful as well. I also, if I may, would like to pay tribute to the noble Lord case for his maiden speech. He was confident. He brings experience to this house. He made a strong defence of the Union, and he joins the long list of permanent secretaries of the Civil Service who are in this place and will bring undoubted experience to the chamber, and, if I may, in the same way, pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate of Edmundsbury and Ipswich.

She spoke very fluently on the key issues that she faced brought criminal justice issues to the fore, including the issue of wrongful convictions. And I say to her in response to her question, that the review that she mentioned from Dame Vera Baird is independent and will report, according to when the noble dame herself brings forward these issues. We've had a very good debate today. And as well as those maidens and valedictory speeches, we've had some 70 plus contributions, which I will try and respond to in due course.

This is important because the issues that we're discussing on security, policing, criminal justice, immigration and the union are essential to the lives of everyone in this country. And I just say to the noble Lord Wolfson of Tredegar and indeed the noble Lords, that we will do these things that we say we have a commitment to do these. Whatever the little political difficulties there are at the moment, this is a programme for government that the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice is committing to seeing through, with support of colleague Ministers, and we have made significant progress over the last two years.

And I say to the noble Lord Davies of Gower that we have made real progress since taking office. The government has made it a priority to restore neighbourhood policing, and we have had 3000 additional neighbourhood policing officers put in place as part of our potential 13,000 by the end of this Parliament, and I know that Baroness Doocey welcomes those police on the ground. We have got a policing guarantee to do exactly what the noble Lord Kirkham mentioned in his contribution, which is to look at the issues that matter to people on the ground anti-social behaviour, knife crime, homicide and theft, all of which are falling through the Crime and Policing Act.

We both still boasted old powers for anti-social behaviour. Retail crime was mentioned again by the noble Lord Kirk of knife Crime, online stalking and exploitation on immigration and border security. This King's speech will build on the activity to date. I say to the noble Lord Green of Deddington, the net migration is down. Asylum decisions are making more speedily. More people with no right to be here are being removed. And I say to the noble Lord Murray of Blidworth, I welcome his support.

But it's a pity he didn't do those things when he was in office himself, when he had chance only 18 months ago to do so. We have stopped 4000 attempted channel crossings in partnership with the French and on national security. We have introduced Martyns law. We have introduced youth diversion orders. We have ensured that we put in place a range of important measures. And I say to colleagues today that we do have an ambitious delivery programme. And amongst the things that we're talking about today, particularly the issue of anti-Semitism, has been key.

And I want to just touch on that. First of all, if I may, the noble Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, the noble Lord Ranger, the noble Lord Godson Baroness Foster of Oxton have all raised, quite rightly the challenges of anti-Semitism. The right reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury did suggest, and I welcome that suggestion, that we do need to bring two communities together to deal with that scourge. The noble Lord Morse, the noble Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury, and my noble friends Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath and the noble Lord Stevens of Birmingham, suggested that we do need to have cross-party approach to tackle this issue.

It's extremely important. The Baroness Foster has mentioned the Jonathan Fisher Review, which was also mentioned by my noble friend Lord Cryer, and they are important issues that we need to look at dealing with, to try to bring into into play the noble Baroness Fox of Buckley talked about the bans in the the recent marches. I think they were fair and reasonable. We'll debate that and discuss that in due course. The noble Lord Pickles Baroness Noakes and my. The noble Baroness Altmann of all again raised extremism and the scourge of anti-Semitism.

And I say to my noble friend Baroness Berger, it is not acceptable that her children have to go through barriers to school. But we have put that resource in to help protect the community, and we have done that in a fair and effective way. And I say also to the noble Baroness Gohir that Muslim hate crime is equally important, and the government will take a stand on those issues. Now, we're ambitious with this legislative agenda. And I say to the noble Lord Morse, we do understand and want to look at the question of delivery.

And I start with national security, which will always be our first priority. In Gracious Speech, there are two bills which are extremely important in defending our national security. Firstly, the fast track response to equip the Home Secretary with powers to designate organisations engaged in threatening activity linked to a foreign power. The issues to do with a range of bodies. The noble Lords talked about the IRGC. We don't comment on prescription as yet, but the issue in this bill will give the Home Secretary powers to tackle terrorist organisations under state regimes, and I know again that the noble Baroness Manningham-Buller, my noble friend Lord Reid of Cardowan, have recognised that those state threats are changing Baroness Noakes the Lord Faulks.

And again, my noble friend Lord Cryer and Baroness Berger have both supported and looked at the issue of those bills. It is important the noble Lord Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury Baroness Jenkin of Kennington, noble Lord Walney and noble Lord Stevens of Birmingham, and the noble Lord. Government of Wickham, have all raised the issue of how we deal with those state threats. And I say to all of those noble Lords, the McDonald review will be reporting very shortly in May. The issue of charities is kept under continual review.

We do
21:41
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
ensure that we have a national security strategy, which we will revert to in due course, and those revert to in due course, and those are important issues that we need to take place. And I just say to the House as a whole, the National the House as a whole, the National security Bill bolstering defences to counter the full range of to counter the full range of threats waged against us, and the bill on prescription are two important measures that will be important measures that will be brought before this House as soon as practicable, to ensure that we put that national security footing on a stronger base.

Now, we've also had the police reform bill mentioned the police reform bill will directly challenge policing in the modern world to look at how we can improve the ever evolving threats that we have. The Home Secretary has laid out a significant programme of reform, based on the White Paper, to secure trust and confidence, to abolish PCCs, to strengthen local policing, to look at a national response and to, as a number of noble Lords have mentioned, to make sure that independence remains vital.

The noble Baroness Doocey has welcomed the Bill, as has the noble Lord. My noble friend Lord Bach. The noble Baroness Hamwee, supported by the right Reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Gloucester, and Baroness Martin, my noble friend, have talked about prevention of reoffending. That is extremely important and we need to look at how we can improve that. The noble Lord Foster of Bath has talked about ensuring that we do have consultation and consideration of these matters. Absolutely right. My noble friend Baroness Hyde of Bemerton and the noble Lord Kirkham and the noble Lord Paddick have all welcomed in broad terms the direction of travel, and we've had a discussion around the question of devolution, of policing and how we can look at that from the noble Baroness Smith of Llanfaes and the noble Lord Thomas.

I say to both of them that the noble Lord Hogan-Howe, on behalf of the government, is currently looking at how we can deal with those issues. And we'll reporting back in the summer as a whole. There's been significant discussion on the Courts and Tribunal bill. We're not going to achieve consensus here this evening. Noble Lord Garnier and learned Lord Garnier has mentioned IPS. My noble friend Baroness Taylor's touched on that as well on on these issues as well. Baroness Stowell has given us a heads up on her former future private member's Bill Baroness Hayter Baroness Berridge Lord Thomas Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws have all expressed concerns about this bill.

My noble friend Baroness Mattinson has supported the proposals. The Lord Dobbs has mentioned that he's concerned about rape trials. Well, let me just say to him that rape trials will still have a jury before them. The noble Lord Bellamy has worried about the three year plan that was in place. That is going to be produced. And my noble friend, I think, will write to him very shortly on these matters on justice and reoffending. We are in favour of strong community punishments. We are investing in probation, we have increased the number of sitting days and we have, through the Victims and Courts Act, invested £550 million over the next three years in victims services, and they're important issues.

But quite rightly, there are concerns they will be debated and will reach to some conclusions in due course. The question of immigration has been central to the debate tonight, and it is right that our borders are secure, our rules are enforced, that there is fairness and that we also take steps to remove people who have no right to be here. There are plans in the proposals to look at the question of a new model for article eight, which was mentioned by the Lord Blencathra and the noble Lord Faulks.

That will be discussed in due course about how we can make some tweaks to that article eight of the ECHR. But we're not going to withdraw from the ECHR like the noble Lord Davis wishes. That's that. Well, you're not in government at the moment. The noble Lord Stoneham government. So. So we'll say, but we're not going to do that. But we are going to make some tweaks to that. The Archbishop of right reverend Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has expressed concerns which we will obviously look at and reflect on, but I'm pleased.

I've had support from my noble friend Lord Reid of Cardowan, my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie, and there are issues to do with modern slavery. Baroness Butler-Sloss, Baroness Hamwee and Lord McColl of Dulwich have raised. We will look at the question of section 48 and look at how we can examine that in due course. Now again, issues to do with integration raised by the noble Lord MP. Issues to do with the proposals we have from noble Lord Teverson. My noble friend Lord Bach noble Lord, friend Lord Sahota and my Lord Bird friend Baroness Lister.

We understand those concerns. I hope we'll be able to persuade colleagues during the course of the passage of the bill that those are the right course of action, but that's what this chamber is about. I understand those concerns, and we will return to them in due course. And I do welcome, genuinely the support of the noble Lord Murray of Blidworth and indeed the noble Baroness Cash for those proposals. But we will have to revisit them, and we'll have to test them, and we will have that discussion in due course, because we have to have order and control in the immigration system.

We've also got the Hillsborough bill, which I'm particularly pleased to have before the House in due course, as a supporter of Liverpool Football Club all my life, but also because it's the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do. We will rebuild public confidence in the justice process and we will, through my colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, introduce that statutory duty of candour. Now, I do know again that the noble Baroness Manningham-Buller has raised some issues. I hope we can resolve those issues in an amicable way for all parties.

But I welcome the noble Lord Dobbs, the noble Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Baroness O'Loan, my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti, and indeed the support of Lord Marks of Henley for the principle behind the bill with the security services. The measures in the Bill will apply to all public authorities and services, including the intelligence services. But we have to work through the concerns and find some solutions to the issues that have been raised, and we will do in due course. There's been a lot of discussion and debate around the union on votes for 16 year olds, on devolution, and on the issues in the Gracious Speech as a whole about trust in politics.

I think it's a really important issues around the union. The Noble and learned, Lord Hope of Craighead, and indeed made a sterling defence of the Union and the role of the government, as did the noble Lord Waldegrave of North Hill. Baroness foster has made the case for the Union. The Baroness Berridge has raised some issues which I will get back to around because the. The. I would want to look into them in a bit more detail, and I think it's important that the points that have been raised, indeed by the noble Lord Wallace of Saltaire on how the patchwork fits together on the noble Lord Rennard.

I don't necessarily agree with the direction of travel on PR, but there are always issues that we can reflect on and look at the question that my noble friend Baroness Hayter raised around donations. And again, the issues to do with how we organise donations, which again was touched on by the noble Lord Carter of Haslemere are important. We need to ensure we take money out of our political system. The noble Baroness Hoey tempted me to look at Brexit.

I think I'll leave that one for tonight if I may, but we'll we'll obviously have some further discussions on that and how we get a working relationship with the European Union. And that's what is being looked at in relation to a range of issues. And the noble Lord Carter of Haslemere as part of that section of the debate and the noble Lord Farmer talked about votes at 16. They've made their points. I just referred them, if I may, and this, I hope, will find favour with the noble Baroness from Wales.

When I spoke about earlier in Wales, we've introduced voted 16 people a week last Thursday. Smith of Wales spoke a week last Thursday. People in Wales who voted. I'm not even sure they voted for my party, but they voted. We introduced it and they voted. So there's a there's a model to look at and the concerns that have been raised by the noble Lord Farmer and by the noble Lord Carter are ones that can be examined in due course.

And the Baroness Falkner of Baroness Bull Baroness Falkner of somewhere I can't read my own writing of now, but Baroness Falkner hit on the. The really important points of trust being key and trust in politics is absolutely key, which is why I also want to just mention the question of the Northern Ireland Bill, which was mentioned by Baroness alone. The Lord Elliott of Mallard and the noble Lord Boo Boo. The governments had to look at this issue, had to look at it again.

There is a carryover bill. The points that have been raised today are extremely important, and we will examine that again. But I think we've got to try to reach a resolution to this issue with the Irish government, with the people of Northern Ireland and with the parties here today. So I hope that we can examine that in due course. Essentially, this king's gracious speech is about reform, and it's about continuing the work that we have done in government to make a difference about key issues.

It's about reducing crime. It's about keeping our society secure from terrorism. It's about managing our borders in an effective way. It's about speeding up justice and also supporting re-offending, being, you know, you know, reduced. And it's about ensuring that we give a justice of candour and put that public trust in our society through the Hillsborough Law. This is reform for a purpose. It is to ensure that we have better policing, supporting local policing and giving a better national focus.

It's about providing security to keep ourselves safe in an age, as has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, of growing and diverse threats, it's about strengthening our borders and improving efficiency. And it's about speeding up justice to restore the ability of courts to deal with cases, to give justice to victims. I would suggest that as a second term programme in government, this is a solid amount of work. We have to deliver on it. But I would commend the elements of the Home Office, Justice and Union King's Gracious Speech to this House, and I look forward to arguing, debating and hopefully agreeing on a number of elements of the programme during the course of the next session of Parliament.

And as ever, my door is open to discuss any concerns. I will read Hansard tomorrow in detail. If I haven't covered questions and points that have been raised, because there's been an awful lot of points. I will return to those in writing, but I hope that noble Lords can at least tonight, welcome this King's speech and support the general objectives of the government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move the debate. Be now adjourned until

**** Possible New Speaker ****

debate. Be now adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday the 19th of May. The course adjourned until Tuesday.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tuesday. The 19th of May. As many as are of that opinion will say content of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the contrary, not content. the contents have it. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn. now adjourn.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page