Live Debate: Lords Chamber

Orders and regulations: Prison (Governor’s and Adjudicators’ Punishments) (Amendment) Rules 2026 and the associated regret motion in the name of Lord Farmer

Punishments. Amendment rules 2026.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. First I would like to thank all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First I would like to thank all noble Lords who have put their names down to speak and have made time to take part this evening. Setting the scene the Victims and Setting the scene the Victims and Courts Act 2026 gave judges the power to impose imprison punishments for non-attendance. At

19:53

Lord Farmer (Conservative)

- -

punishments for non-attendance. At sentencing hearing, the MoJ gave these new judicial sanctions a big push in the media last month when they were laid as the Sentencing Act 2020 Brackett's Prison Sanctions Regulations 2026. I agree with the Moj's intent to make, quote, cowardly killers who dodge sentencing face tough new prison punishments. These punishments include no visits for up to 27 days and restriction of social visits to once every 28 days for up to 84 days. For these prison sanctions to have effect, the Sentencing Code requires that they correspond to the punishments that may be imposed by a governor under prison rules.

So governors who oversee them need parallel powers. Hence the prison bracket's governors and adjudicators. Punishments Amendment rules 2026. These are the subject of my regret motion because they give governors new disciplinary powers that do not correspond to judges very limited sanctions, but far exceed them. Whereas a judge can restrict visits at the very beginning of a sentence, governors are now able to do so at any point to punish any offence. The prison prisoner Discipline Procedures, Adjudications Policy framework does set parameters as to offence seriousness, but a. These could change and be. Why are such sanctions generally available?

Removing visits for non-attendance at sentence hearings is reasonable and hard to disagree with. However, the measure has been expanded beyond this initial justification, and prison rules changed in a way that was not made clear during passage of the Parental Act. The government might claim they are being tough on crime, but it's an ineffective measure to that end. At best a counterproductive measure at worst. Certainly, it's not being soft on crime to oppose it, but the opposite social visits can restrain bad behaviour because pro-social relationships improve rehabilitation. Lack of such relationships is a criminogenic need. These are an individual's characteristics, traits, problems or issues that directly relate to their likelihood of reoffending.

Offender Assessment system data says 72% of all offenders in custody have a relationships need, and 80% of women in prison. Obviously, governors are immediately concerned with reoffending that happens inside their jails. This is the justification for making harsher punishments available. However, I saw during my first review for the government how family visits can turn around. Dreadful behaviour. The mother of one young man complained to the deputy governor of a prison of a prison I visited about allocations of unfair treatment made by her son. The deputy helped her understand that the shoe was actually on the other foot on her next visit.

This mother put her son right. Told him to get a grip and his behaviour changed utterly. This anecdote is backed up by the Moj's own research on reoffending, which found the protective factor of positive family relationships can moderate risk factors, including having an attitudinal Criminogenic need a way of thinking, belief or attitude likely to lead to further offences. That young man would probably be among the 85% of male prisoners in that category. Those who have family visits are significantly less likely to reoffend than those who do not. The old MoJ figure of 39% dwarfed the effectiveness of other rehabilitation pathways like education, employment and drug treatment.

It was the reason they asked me to do the reviews first for the male estate and second for all female offenders. HMP s commitment to implementing all my review's recommendations since 2017 has gone far beyond words on a page. They know the greater prize is to shift the culture towards a greater emphasis on improving relationships, whether between officers and prisoners, senior officers, mentoring junior officers or between prisoners themselves. The Transforming Prisons Directorate are reconceiving prisons and designing new builds around the need for relationships. Yet despite ten years of progress, social contact is now a disciplinary sanction.

The Prison Reform Trust say this devalues family members, treats them as instruments of prison discipline and completely neglects the impact on them, despite them having them. Having nothing done have done nothing wrong. Thankfully, those with children will not be so punished, but such prison prisoners already have a far greater incentive to keep out of trouble in prison. A category A prisoners in HMP Franklin told me they walk away from conflict because their families and children will hear of altercations and want to know that they are safe. Indeed, I've heard governors don't want to use this sanction as they see it as counterproductive to running a safe regime.

Lord Woolf's report on our prison riots in 1989 warned that messing with families ability to visit was one of the most resented acts the Prison Service could take. To conclude, this is the recurring problem governments of all colours face how to appear tough on crime which this isn't. Without turning our prisons into overcrowded places where rehabilitation becomes impossible. With attention on capacity pressures and early release. I fear measures are being introduced that make regimes appear tougher on crime, but which are simply tougher on prisoners and more toxic to a rehabilitation culture. If this is if this increases in prison and community reoffending, our prisons will simply fill up.

King and Wilmot's honest Politician's Guide to prison and probation tracked 40 years of tough penal policy and the personalities responding for crafting it. They found time and time again once politicians moved on from the justice portfolio, they acknowledged the futility of bowing down to public opinion instead of rewrite and reissue it, so removal of visits can only be used in relation to the judge. Imposed sanction for non-attendance at sentence hearing. This could be achieved by taking it out of rule 55, covering punishments for any offence and following the example of rule 55AB, which specifically requires a prisoner to pay for damage to prison property once found guilty.

This new rule could then be 55AC. I hope this will be considered and I beg to move. considered and I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As this motion be agreed to. My Lords. I normally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I normally. Back wholeheartedly initiatives that improve rehabilitation of prisoners. However, in this instance I beg to differ from the instance I beg to differ from the noble Lord Farmer because I believe we must look at these new rules through the lens of fundamental through the lens of fundamental justice, public confidence and the rights of victims families. These new rules. Kanter is disturbing trend of offenders refusing to leave their cells to face the court at the time of their sentencing. Let us remind ourselves, with public and victims families, they are demanding action. We saw the murderers of nine year old Olivia Pratt-korbel of Zara Aleena and of Sabina Nessa, refusing to face the families whose lives they had destroyed.

This trend is becoming increasingly common, adopted by serial killers. At the Countess of Chester Hospital and the Southport Murderer two for grieving families sitting in a courtroom watching an empty dock because a perpetrator simply chooses to opt out is intolerable insult. It makes closure extremely difficult for them and makes a mockery of our justice system. The traditional internal punishments, such as adding days to a sentence, mean absolutely nothing to a murderer already facing a whole life of half a century behind the bars. If a prisoner deliberately defies the authority of the court, there must be immediate, tangible loss of privileges within the prison estate.

Critics I know argue that these rules risk damaging rehabilitation. But true rehabilitation cannot be king without accountability. An offender who refuses to look their victims in the eye is actively rejecting the first step of reform and rehabilitation. The government has approached this issue with care. It has vital safeguards. The rules explicitly exempt an offender's children from these restrictions. What is being targeted is wider privileges visits, which must be earned through compliance with our justice system. My Lords, we need to back the government in restoring this vital level of authority. However, we must ensure its implementation has checks and balances to avoid abuses.

So a question to my noble friend the Minister. How will the government plan to monitor the implementation of these rules, particularly how the prison governors are using it, and that there are no violations? My Lords, recognising that the public confidence in our courts is fragile, these rules protect children, target defiance and ensure court orders are respected. I urge the House to reject this motion.

20:04

Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (Crossbench)

- -

The noble Lord Lord Farmer for bringing this matter before the House and for all he has done over House and for all he has done over the years in trying to improve rehabilitation in prisons. But I rehabilitation in prisons. But I also have great sympathy with the government because they are faced with the action of both political parties in winding up the prison population, which is probably at the root cause of all these problems. But I don't want to say anything about that tonight. What I do want to raise is the point that shines through the report.

The excellent report of the secondary legislation Select committee, and that is that we don't seem to understand two things. First, what is the cause of the inexorable rise in the number of disciplinary offences and the sanctions that have had to be increased? And secondly, it normally is useful to try and understand if you find out what the cause is, what is the most effective way of preventing it? And it seems to me very clear that what we need is a proper examination of the cause and the best way of trying to deal with the problem.

Now, it might be thought that we set up some grand committee, or we ask people to look again and take a year or so to resolve this. I don't believe that's at all necessary. We have two expert charities, the Prison Reform Trust and the Howard League, and we have admirable governors such as the Minister must know and knows from our own experience in our prisons. And there are other experts in penology. It seems to me that what is called for as soon as practicable is a an answer to the question of why is prison discipline getting worse?

B what is the best way of preventing it? And see how is what is proposed in this Statutory Instrument working? Instinctively, I feel that cutting off social relations is bad for prisoners. I also believe that incentives is probably more effective, but that is a belief. It's not based on evidence. And one thing that experience has taught me is you need to find out the why, the solution, and the best way to deal with this problem. We cannot afford to make a mistake because adding days to prisons to prisoners is increasing our prison population, and we cannot afford not to seek rehabilitation through visits by families.

The two policies seem to me to be wrong, but I don't know. We need to know why.

20:07

Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Conservative)

- -

Lord Jay the Prison Rules 1999 already provide prison governors with an extensive suite of with an extensive suite of disciplinary measures. Prisoners who offend against prison discipline may be cautioned. They discipline may be cautioned. They may be suffer forfeiture of privileges. They may be excluded privileges. They may be excluded from work which they carry out in the prison estate. They may suffer a deduction of loss of earnings. They may be confined to their cells. They may have maybe suffer removal from the wing upon which they are located. They may experience payback, punishment. Now, my Lords, what do these existing measures have in common?

They are all directed against the offender himself, his privileges, his earnings, his freedom of movement on the wing, his opportunity to work. Prisoners are serving terms of imprisonment because of things which they have done. We punish people for the crimes which they commit, not the crimes which others commit. My concern, my Lords, is that this amendment to the rules will punish not only the prisoner, but those who would seek to visit the prisoner. Those on the outside who have just as much interest in his rehabilitation as any. Those people, those loved ones, have not offended.

They have not breached prison discipline. But just as the prisoner will be punished by being deprived of their society, so they will be punished by being deprived of the society of the prisoner. It is undesirable, my Lords, to impose penalties on a person for something which someone else has done. Prison discipline is exercised summarily, necessarily and responsibly by prison governors, but summarily. And it may well be that a prison governor contemplating the use of this punishment could easily be expected to overlook the effect on someone outside who would wish to pay a social visit. A parent, a relative, a good friend, a well, a genuine well-wisher.

My Lords, let prisons help prisoners amend themselves for the better. Let us not punish people on the outside for the disciplinary lapses of those inside prisons whom they love.

20:09

Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)

- -

Many thanks to the noble Lord Lord Farmer and my Lords. When we debated the Victims and Courts Bill debated the Victims and Courts Bill here. I had qualms about the targeted punishment of withdrawing social visits, even from those social visits, even from those prisoners. Despicably refusing to attend sentencing hearings. I don't like families, even of selfish, like families, even of selfish, cowardly perpetrators being used as a stick. But then I thought of the families of the victims shown such contempt by such prisoners, and I swallowed my concerns. But if ever there was an example of why we should beware, laws passed here being weighed down by secondary legislation, legislation, powers is the dangerous slippery slope on display here.

It shows another type of contempt contempt for democracy. No one in Parliament agreed to this mission creep that has amended the Sentencing Code to allow restrictions on family visits as a general disciplinary punishment. None of us gave permission for that. Why would we, when it shows politicians contempt for any of the common sense advice or on the ground expertise of prison officers and criminal justice campaigners about how real discipline works in prisons? One of the most effective restraints on bad behaviour or criminal activity inside, or indeed on release from prison, is the influence of families and loved ones.

Does the Minister understand, if he wants a prisoner to have any sense of regret or shame for past crimes, or to be inspired to change is by their mum, their fiancÃ©e, their kids? Not letting them down can be a powerful antidote to getting into further trouble. These social visits can lead to encouragement, even to tellings off. And while not exactly being able to conquer all the toxicity and brutality of prisons having to face down, your mum can do a hell of a lot covering up. Cutting off this pro-social influences inexplicably foolish and performative toughness.

If the government really wants to be tough on the chaos in too many prisons, then do the hard jobs, tackle the thriving drugs industry behind bars, take on the growth of unchecked Islamist gangs, expose how human rights laws are being deployed to limit staff's ability to exert authority and impose rules. Don't take the soft option of weaponizing family visits. If only the government used their executive powers to tackle cuts in purposeful activity in prison education, to invest in training and support for inexperienced, overworked staff. I have been involved in a prison project debating matters beyond bars.

The most moving moments those prisoners debaters beaming at their certificates because they can't wait to send them home, and then letters from their wives and their kids saying it helped him see another future. Something to be proud of for his family. Families are the best rehabilitation aid ever. They're cheap and you dispense with them at your peril.

20:12

Baroness D'Souza (Crossbench)

- -

My Lords, irrefutable evidence from the academic sector. Independent reviews, government led inquiries and the Ministry of inquiries and the Ministry of Justice itself demonstrates that maintaining family and social relationships is fundamental to prisoner's wellbeing, rehabilitation and successful reintegration. It is therefore reintegration. It is therefore puzzling, to say the very least, that the government chooses to introduce a punishment that risks undermining the very conditions necessary for safer prisons, improved behaviour and successful rehabilitation. The lack of adequate consultation with prisons groups is also of great concern. Many have expressed doubts on the proposed restrictions, pointing out the possible negative consequences.

These include the damaging effect on children who are innocent, for whom keeping in touch with relatives in prison may be an important means of emotional stability and support. Prisoners, especially from the minority sectors, typically tend to convey instances of bullying, unfair treatment and other inequalities to family members during visits, which are then reported on by those family members. My Lords, financial hardship, geographical, geographical distance and other inequalities already significantly restrict family visits. Does the government really believe that removing a prisoner source of emotional support is likely to improve behaviour? Or does it remove one of the strongest incentives for positive change?

The new powers, my Lords, I think, are disproportionate. They infringe prisoners fundamental rights to family life and are counterproductive. They directly contradict the government's wider objectives of improving aspects of prisons and of prisoners lives. Family contact should be recognised, must be recognised as an essential component of rehabilitation, and not simply as a privilege that can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be withdrawn as punishment. I'd like to. Thank the noble Lord Lord Farmer

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank the noble Lord Lord Farmer for bringing this. I hate staying up late, but this is worth it. Because really, this is a cruel Because really, this is a cruel idea. The government says that it wants to tackle rising indiscipline and violence in prisons, and of and violence in prisons, and of course it does. Nobody wants to see prisoners or prison staff living in prisoners or prison staff living in unsafe conditions. But I am against this decision to take away social visits as a punishment, not least because the government's own evidence tells us that family contact is one of the things that

20:15

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)

- -

helps people behave better, supports rehabilitation, and reduces reoffending. Plus, we reduces reoffending. Plus, we should not pretend that violence and indiscipline in prisons have appeared out of nowhere. They have appeared out of nowhere. They have to be understood in the context of years of pressure on the prison system, overcrowding, poor system, overcrowding, poor conditions, staff shortages and the staff that are there are often inexperienced. And what's the government's response? More punishment. The Ministry of Justice produced its research into the impact of social visits on reoffending, self-harm and accommodation after release, and it found that people who received visits were significantly less likely to have a proven re-offense within a year of release, they committed fewer further offences and took longer to reoffend.

They were also less likely to self-harm and more likely to have accommodation when they left prison, and the more visits people received, the less the lower the reoffending rate. And then in March this year, Inspectorate of Prisons published its thematic review and found that regular family contact was associated with better mental health, improved behaviour and greater feelings of safety. People who receive regular visits or social video calls were less likely to be at risk of suicide or self-harm. They were also less likely to experience bullying and victimisation, and less likely to be restrained or held in segregation.

The inspectorate was clear that family contact should be treated as an essential part of prison safety and rehabilitation. So I ask the government why? Why is it taking away something that its own evidence says that helps make prisons safer? I think that we constantly hear the refrain that prisons have to be a place of punishment, but you can't actually keep on making punishments harsher. It just doesn't work like that. At some point, you will end up filling up more prison spaces with extra days and days when when prisoners should be on licence being supervised. Please rethink this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a very nasty move. My Lords are. The government advance. Two

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The government advance. Two inconsistent reasons behind. This Statutory Instrument. First, they say that the incidence of they say that the incidence of violence and rule breaking in prisons is is going up. And prisons is is going up. And therefore governors and independent adjudicators need harsher or stricter options available to stricter options available to punish the serious and repeat rule breaking. And secondly, they say that because of the Sentencing Act 2026, which reduced the actual

20:18

Lord Garnier (Conservative)

- -

amount of time that prisoners will serve their sentence, governors serve their sentence, governors need to have the ability to keep need to have the ability to keep them in. Now, it strikes me as odd, and indeed, it strikes me as sad and indeed, it strikes me as sad that the central question, that which has been asked by my noble, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, but has not been thought about by the government, it seems, is. Has anybody asked themselves why prisoners commit acts of indiscipline or break the rules in the first place?

It's largely because they are incarcerated for 23 out of 24 hours a day in a multi-occupied cell. They essentially live in a public lavatory, they are largely mentally ill. They are largely illiterate. They are largely innumerate, and what they need is not to be subjected. And I think the Minister knows this because she used to work in Holloway Prison. So she knows that everyone who has spoken this evening, apart from the noble Lady, Lady Gill, is speaking some quite sensible things, saying some quite sensible things. But it seems to me that if you keep people in those conditions, if you fail to give them a sense of purpose, if you fail to rehabilitate them, well then you not only let them down, you're not only in danger of the lives and working conditions of the governors and the prison staff, but you also waste our money.

That's to say the taxpayers money, and do not provide us with the requisite safety that we require of a rehabilitated prisoner, because they come back just as they went in, and so they re-offend. So please, I ask the government to be a little more intelligent about this, think a little more strategically about this, and not to resort to the usual government rubbish of reacting in a knee jerk way without having applied their minds to the problem in front of them. It's not surprising that when prison governors and other prison group directors were asked about these measures, they were hesitant and indeed they were sceptical.

And if the Minister believes that this is going to be a good idea, when the professionals in the business clearly think it is not what she needs to have another think. I won't complain about the English of the of the the the explanatory notes. But when the government says engagement with internal stakeholders to explore the impact on external policy areas such as prisoner family and relations, trade unions and third sector stakeholders has commenced and will continue to occur prior to this instrument coming into force, I ask myself first, what on earth does that mean? Secondly, has it happened?

And when will we hear about the result? But please don't allow this house to be fooled into thinking that this is a good idea. It plainly is not.

20:21

Baroness Wheatcroft (Crossbench)

- -

My Lords, the noble Lord Lord >> My Lords, the noble Lord Lord Farmer is quite right to draw the attention of the House to this ill attention of the House to this ill judged measure. To oppose it is in no way to condone the crime or the no way to condone the crime or the criminal. But it is to acknowledge the appalling conditions in many of our prisons which are giving rise to this discontent and the offences that are being committed there. And as we have just had graphically described by the noble Lord Lord Garnier. Given that the majority of the prison population consists of people with numerous problems, disadvantages, frustrations, many of whom would have been much better and more successfully dealt with outside the prison system, clashes with authority within are inevitable, and the conditions they now are serving in make that only worse.

The potential doubling of penalties under these rule changes risks dramatically damaging the mental health of the recipients. But our. Concentrate my remarks on their potential to add to the chances of prison leavers being homeless. My Lords, people leaving prison regularly walk out straight into homelessness. In the year to March, the number was averaging, averaging 300 a week. Is it any wonder that for some of those, reoffending seems the easiest way to find accommodation and a degree of security? These ill thought through measures are only likely to add to that problem. My Lords, many prisoners have family relationships which are at best fragile.

Visits and relations can at least preserve those flimsy relationships. They might even nurture them. They could be crucial in ensuring that on release, the prisoner does have a go, a home to go to, damaging those relationships by forbidding visits seems a dangerously short sighted move. All the evidence is that strong relationships on the outside can be pivotal in allowing a prisoner to rebuild his life after release. Having friends or family prepared to provide immediate accommodation may be the crucial factor in preventing that individual from reoffending. Governors should never jeopardise that chance, my Lord. As a society, we surely should not tolerate people being released.

Released from incarceration by the state into a life on the streets. Last month it was alleged that on release, some prisoners were being issued with tents. The government response to that was simply it is not government policy. But, my Lords, to underline why I believe it is so vital that governors should not endanger any chance of prisoners leaving into proper accommodation. I ask the Minister for a simple yes or no. Under this government, have prisoners been issued with sleeping bags and tents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on their release? Yes they are. My Lords. recognised. As the central.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As the central. Purpose of our prison system. This was true when I worked in the Ministry of Justice ten years ago Ministry of Justice ten years ago and remains so today. Yet these rules allowing social visits to be removed or restricted as a punishment, potentially undermine one of the very things that can one of the very things that can help reduce reoffending. We know that our prisons are full to bursting. We cannot carry on like we have been.

We also know what helps reduce reoffending. Education and training. Drug and alcohol treatment. Preparation for employment. Stable accommodation on release and where needed, mental

20:25

Baroness Porter of Fulwood (Conservative)

- -

health support. But provision remains inadequate. Inspectorate of remains inadequate. Inspectorate of Prisons reported last year that 94 of the 104 closed prisons it had of the 104 closed prisons it had inspected were rated poor or not sufficiently good for purposeful activity. At a time when public finances are stretched and difficult, trade offs are having to be made about what to prioritise, be made about what to prioritise, many of these areas are not being adequately resourced. There is one area, though, which the state doesn't need to fund and which will save money over the long term if it leverages it.

That is, developing strong social networks around offenders. I want to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Farmer and to Doctor Samantha Callan for their important work in this area over many years. The Farmer Review makes a compelling case for maintaining family ties during imprisonment. It cites Ministry of Justice research showing that for a prisoner who receives visits from a family member, the odds of reoffending are 39% lower than those who do not. Removing visits risks undermining precisely the relationships that can help prevent reoffending after release. A point that's been made many times already. Family relationships should not be treated as a luxury item for those who behave well, ensuring an ordered and disciplined environment is the foundation for a well-run prison.

The irony here is that these rules risk undermining one of the building blocks that can help create the very behaviour and stability that prison discipline seeks to achieve. If we are serious about reducing reoffending, we need to be asking how we can strengthen family ties, not treating them as a special treat that can be removed as punishment. That governors have themselves expressed hesitancy over these changes and that their likely impacts have not been assessed. Mean we should surely proceed with caution. Ultimately, prison discipline should support a prison system that protects the public, and this must mean reducing reoffending.

We should not risk undermining that objective without a clear understanding of the consequences.

20:27

Lord Foster of Bath (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lord, on. >> Broad thrust of the government's proposals. But we are concerned, like many others, by the proposal to withdraw family visits as a punishment in the cases covered by the sea. And that's why we do support the regret motion. In the name of the noble Lord Lord Farmer. Few have done more than the noble Lord to demonstrate the importance of family relationships in reducing reoffending and helping prisoners rebuild their lives. Now, my Lords, I chair your Lordships Justice and Home Affairs Select Committee, and in our report on prisons last year, we argued that punishment of prisons is the prisoners is the loss of liberty, and that the job of prisons is to reduce reoffending through education, purposeful activity, tackling addiction and mental health problems, and preparing people for release.

And that also means maintaining, as so many people have said, family relationships because, as Lord Farmer has rightly described, family ties are the golden thread in reducing reoffending. Evidence

**** Possible New Speaker ****

shows that family contact improves mental. Health, reduces.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Health, reduces. Self-harm and importantly. Reduces reoffending. So against. That backdrop, I. Find it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Find it. Extraordinary that the government should introduce rules allowing family visits to be withdrawn as a disciplinary punishment. Of course, effective sanctions are. But why introduce a sanctions are. But why introduce a punishment which undermines the very thing that makes prison and the prisons and the public safer? There are three fundamental objections. First, as the noble Lady Baroness Fox has said, it is counterproductive. Family contact provides hope, emotional stability and an incentive to behave responsibly, removing it risk, increasing isolation, frustration and resentment. Secondly, as the noble Lord Lord Stewart has said, it punishes innocent people, partners, parents, adult children and other relatives who have committed no offence yet lose contact with someone they love.

The exemption for children under 18, of course, is welcome. But what about everybody else? And thirdly, as the noble Lady Baroness Wheatcroft has said, it damages relationships essential for successful resettlement. Families often provide accommodation, practical help and emotional support on release. Why weaken those relationships? Disciplinary sanctions may be necessary, but they should address the prisoner's behaviour without damaging relationships that help prevent future crime. We should strengthen relationships that help prisoners turn their lives around, not take them away. The consequences will be felt by prisoners, innocent families, and ultimately the communities to which prisoners return. So, my Lords, if we're serious about fewer victims, safer communities and less crime, we must stop treating family contact as a privilege that can be withdrawn and recognise it as an essential to reducing reoffending and protecting the public.

I hope the government will think again.

20:30

Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)

- -

My Lords. >> My Lords. >> We appreciate and. >> Obviously acknowledge the extensive work and the experience extensive work and the experience of my noble friend Lord Farmer in this area, and we therefore understand what has prompted him to table this regret motion. However, we cannot offer him support on this occasion. This Statutory Instrument will increase the powers available to governors and independent adjudicators for disciplinary breaches. And given the rising levels of violence and disciplinary issues in prisons, we consider it is important for prison governors to have these additional powers available to them to manage those prisoners who repeatedly break the rules.

An obvious concern with the instrument is the failure of the government to provide a considered impact assessment, and that would include a consideration of the impact on prison capacity. With the increased 84 day limit on the number of days that can be added to a sentence, and we would like to hear from the noble Lady, the Minister, as to what is expected to be the impact of this extension on prison capacity. My Lords, the Ministry of Justice recently released a rapid evidence assessment on safety in prisons, written by Professor James Maguire, and the report looked into violence in prisons and sought to explore the factors that impact the level of violence, and its findings noted that higher staff numbers are stable staff cohort and a minimal level of vacancies were associated with lower levels of violence, and there's hardly any surprise there.

The most recent quarterly data for the Prison and Probation Service for the quarter ending June 2026, showed that the number of prison officers in post had actually reduced over the last two years by more than 1500. So I would ask the noble Lady, the Minister, what steps that the government is going to take to support prison officers in reducing violence by increasing recruitment and retention. My Lords, in conclusion, while conscious of the concerns that have been expressed about the potential impact of these proposals, we are broadly supportive of the need to give prison governors greater powers to deal with indiscipline and accordingly, we will not seek

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to oppose. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I begin by thanking the noble Lord Lord Farmer for securing this important debate and all the noble important debate and all the noble Lords who have contributed. I want to recognise the work the noble Lord has done over many years to make sure family relationships are make sure family relationships are taken seriously within our prison system. He has been a consistent and powerful voice on the and powerful voice on the importance of those relationships and helping people turn their lives around.

I want to thank the noble Lord for his reviews on Prisoner

20:33

Baroness Hyde of Bemerton (Labour)

- -

Family Ties in 2017 and 2019. That many noble Lords have referenced today. The noble Lords motion focuses particularly on the introduction of new restrictions on social visits, and I am Sam, why he social visits, and I am Sam, why he has raised concerns about potential consequences for prisoners, their consequences for prisoners, their families and for rehabilitation. And I will lay out why the government believes these changes are needed, what safeguards have are needed, what safeguards have been put in place and how they strike a reasonable balance? My Lords, I want to make it clear from the outset that I do not see prison order, safety and rehabilitation as competing priorities.

Quite the opposite. They all depend on each other. A prison that is not safe cannot properly rehabilitate, and a prison that does not rehabilitate properly cannot fulfil its duty to protect the prisoners within it and the public. It is not about unnecessary punitiveness or the appearance of such. To the noble Lady, Baroness Jones Point. The government is absolutely committed to prisoner safety and it is focussed on supporting safety and rehabilitation, and is working with partners across government and at a local level to improve outcomes for people in custody and on release through better access to treatment and recovery services, prison education, employment and stable accommodation.

On the point raised by several noble Lords, including the Noble and learned, Lord Low, Lord Garnier and the noble Lady Baroness Wheatcroft about the more general state of our prisons and the contribution of that to prison indiscipline, I would like to take the opportunity to point out that this Labour government in 2024, did inherit a prison system that was on the brink of collapse after 14 years of conservative mismanagement, with less than 100 spaces left in the prison estate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to the noble Lady for. Giving way. There really is no point in saying we inherited this or that. Every government could come in and say that I had said the same things in 2020 ten. It makes no difference. We've got to deal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

no difference. We've got to deal with what's going on right now under her watch. I will move on to those comments,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will move on to those comments, indeed. But I think it's only fair and right that I lay out the territory as you would expect me to territory as you would expect me to do, including referencing the work of his colleague, the noble Lord Lord Farmer in my opening comments when I have ten minutes to speak. So, as I was saying, the government, some of the things this Labour government has done is spent over £40 million on physical infrastructure across 34 prison sites. We've introduced specialist staff and equipment to stop the smuggling of contraband into prisons, which can contribute to violence and instability.

And as I've said, we're modernising prison education and creating that joined up system so that basic literacy and numeracy is in place, supporting people into employment and to higher education. There is much discussion also of carrots and sticks and incentives and sanctions in this. So I want to flag that the government has expanded that incentive, incentivise substance free living units, where prisoners who agree to regular drug testing can access enhanced opportunities, and this will be up to be increased by a further 12 prisons by the end of 2728. And as I'm sure all noble Lords who are contributing to this debate know, we have launched the independent review of the prison system, led by the right hon.

Amber Rudd and supported by a panel of experts, that is, to provide that strategic, risk based assessment of the current risks and opportunities facing the system, to identify the reforms that will enable us to build that prison system fit for the future. And that is due to report back next month. And I am sure all noble Lords would welcome that. So the purpose of the instrument here is to strengthen the range of measures available to governors and independent adjudicators as and as noted by the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen of Ely, this is. For when a serious or persistent rule breaking occurs to provide a fair, proportionate and a response that is sensitive to the circumstances of each individual prisoner.

And it's really important, my Lords, to be clear about the why the measure has been introduced in this way. The new social visit sanction forms part of the wider measure in the Victims and Courts Act, which once in force, will give Crown Court judges the power to impose prison sanctions for an offender aged 18 or over, refuses without reasonable excuse to attend their sentence hearing where a court has ordered them to do so. Parliament has long considered secondary legislation the most most appropriate for matters concerning the management of prisoners via the prison rules, as it allows flexibility to amend the regulations to enable Crown Court judges to restrict social visits.

The sanction must be contained within the prison rules, making it also available as an option for prison governors or independent adjudicators to use in limited. In limited circumstances, it is impossible to include a sanction for non-attendance at sentencing hearing that only judges can impose without an amendment to S41B of the Sentencing Act 2020. This is because the act specifies that the power of judges to give sanctions for non-attendance at sentencing hearings is limited to sanctions that correspond to the ones that governors can give in the prison rules and the affirmative. Statutory Instrument specifying sanctions available to Crown Court judges will be debated, and the timing for that will be announced imminently.

Therefore, I'm going to try and keep the focus of my response to the subject of the noble Lord Farmer, the noble Lord Lord Farmer motion. This government recognises the importance of family contact as referenced by the Noble and learned. Lord Low, Lord Stewart, Baroness Fox of Buckley, Baroness Porter of Fulwood and Lord Foster of Bath amongst other noble Lords. Firstly, and really importantly, children are exempt from this sanction so they can continue to visit their parents. I want to reassure Baroness D'Souza of that. That reflects the government's commitment to protecting that relationship between children and parents in prison, wherever that is safe, appropriate and in the best interests of the child.

Secondly, this measure should be used only as a last resort. The Prison Discipline Policy Framework said that it should only be used exceptionally and for very serious breaches of the rules in cases of severe rule breaking, where other interventions and sanctions have not been effective, adjudicators will have to set out the reasons why they consider the sanction appropriate. Thirdly, those under the age of 21, when the offence was committed committed must not be given forfeiture or restriction of social visits. This is to reflect the separate policy approach for young offenders and for children in custody.

Fourthly, individual circumstances will be taken into account. Some prisoners face serious mental health difficulties, are vulnerable and losing social contact would make their situation worse. The government expect those circumstances to be considered carefully before any restriction is imposed. This is about giving governors and independent adjudicators an additional option where other measures have failed. A measure of last resort. A number of family circumstances should be taken into consideration by the governor, where social visits sanction would cause disproportionate or unintended harm. This includes where a prisoner's family is going through a key transitional period, such as a separation or another period of instability.

I understand the noble Lord Lord Farmer concerns on the effect of restricting social visits, and I take it really seriously. I mean, having somebody else, as other noble Lords have pointed out, having somebody else on the outside who cares about you, encourages you and can give, and who gives you a reason to keep going can make an enormous difference, as your Lordships know, rehabilitation that genuinely cuts crime is central to this government's approach. The Ministry of Justice is supporting this by updating the strengthening family and family, strengthening family and relationship ties policy framework and reviewing the current social visits policy to promote child friendly practice, safeguarding and consistency across prisons.

The government has not lost sight of the importance of family relationships, and also recognise that there will be time in serious or repeated misconduct requires a different response. When a small number of people are violent, threatening or potentially disruptive, they make life harder for those trying to use their time in prison positively. Those trying to get an education learn a trade deal with an addiction should be able to do so in safety. My Lords, the noble Lord Farmer raised the question of whether these new sanctions will improve things for those in prison. And as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas raised, it is crucial to get to the heart of what causes prison indiscipline and prison order should not depend on sanctions alone, which is why governors can use rehabilitative adjudications alongside or instead of traditional sanctions, helping increase the accountability and encourage behaviour change.

This includes unpaid, rehabilitative or reparative projects. Apologies, my Lords, in the interest of time, I will have to write to Baroness Wheatcroft to answer her question. But it is completely unacceptable that people are leaving prisons with tents and that is not the government's position. But I will write to you to Alan that more fully. So, in conclusion and at speed, my Lords, this debate has been valuable and I'm very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed for their scrutiny and insight. I hope I have addressed the principal points points raised. I am aware I need to write to a few people.

If the noble Lord Lord Farmer would be happy to to meet with myself and perhaps Lord Lemos to discuss further his detailed proposal that he outlined in his opening speech. We can arrange for that to happen, but I do want to reiterate my thanks to the noble Lord for tabling the motion, and I do want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to all those who work to make prisons, places of rehabilitation and to keep prisons safe. So therefore, this instrument should be supported. The government does not believe the instrument should be regarded as a matter for regret.

So I hope the noble Lord, having heard these assurances the government has given today, will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

feel able to withdraw his motion. Well, my Lords, I would like to thank all those who have contributed very powerfully to this debate. And I think apart from that, debate. And I think apart from that, Baroness Gill, I think the argument Baroness Gill, I think the argument against these these sanctions being available to every governor to available to every governor to punish any prisoner for any crime, it's all very well to say that there can be advice, and they will take things into account if the sanctions are there. We have 110 prison prisons, 100 and different, 110 different prison governors.

They will these sanctions will be used differently. I do hear the Minister say to me that she'd be happy to talk. However, I've just been aware of the mood of this House. I'm also aware of whippings on the other side and on my own part is lack of support. But frankly, this is a very important matter and I. I wish to test the opinion of the House. opinion of the House.

20:44

Lord Farmer (Conservative)

- -

Apologies my Lord. A division has been called. Sorry, I do apologise. I wasn't sort of expecting that. Right. My Lords, the question is that this motion be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to as many as that opinion will say content Of the contrary, not content. Not content. The question will be decided by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question will be decided by Division. I would advise the House Division. I would advise the House when voting is open. Voting is now

20:45

Division

20:56

Legislation: Health Bill - committee stage (day 2)

do again resolve itself into a committee upon the Bill. As many as that opinion will say content. To the contrary, not content. The contents have it. And we start with amendment 29. My Lords, Lord Shinkwin will be taking part remotely in this debate, and I remind the Committee that unless they are leading a group, remote speakers speak first after the mover of the lead amendment in a group, and may therefore speak to other amendments in the group ahead of members who tabled them.

So amendment 3029. I'm sorry.

20:57

Baroness Gerada (Crossbench)

- -

Baroness Gerada thank. >> I beg to move amendment 29 and will also speak in my name to amendment 79, two, five, eight and amendment 79, two, five, eight and two, five, nine. And I thank the noble Lords, Lord hunt Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Austin of Kings Heath and Lord Austin of Dudley for adding their names. I also thank the noble Lord Mann for his review of anti-Semitism and other forms of racism in the NHS and the government for accepting all 36 of its recommendations. These amendments do not seek to reopen that decision. They aim to ensure its implementation.

According to the 2025 NHS Staff Survey. As reported in Lord Mance review, 13% of Jewish staff report discrimination from managers or colleagues, compared to 11% from patients or the public. Jewish staff are the only group for whom discrimination from within the workforce exceeds that from patients. The review heard evidence that staff no longer wish to work in the NHS. This is unacceptable and must never be accepted as normal. The review also found that some Jewish patients are putting off the care they need. A consultation, my Lord only works if a patient can tell about themselves without fear.

When that trust goes, it is not only a question of equality, it is a question of patient safety. For many years I led the NHS Practitioner Health Service, which over 40,000 doctors, dentists and other healthcare staff turned to for help with their mental health problems. My work has taught me that doctors who do not feel they belong become unwell, and doctors who become unwell leave and we cannot afford to lose them. These findings concern Jewish staff and patients, but the principle at stake is far broader a health service that makes any group of patients hesitate to seek care for any group of staff feel unsafe at work fails us all.

That is why these amendments address antisemitism alongside every other form of racism. Why bring them to this bill? Much of the work required to deliver the review rests on guidance, contracts and programmes already owned by NHS England, even as this bill transfers its functions elsewhere, commitments that exist only in guidance can be quietly lost when the body that wrote them is wound down. These amendments will place the essentials in statute. Amendment 258 is at the heart of the group. It would require integrated care boards and NHS trusts to have regard to the need to prevent anti-Semitism and all other forms of racism affecting patients and staff.

It would also act to prevent staff conduct that amounts to support for proscribed organisations, and respond effectively when racist conduct occurs, including by supporting those affected. The Secretary of State would report to Parliament every year on progress. I appreciate that the Minister might explain that the public sector equality duty already covers this ground with respect. It does not. While it requires public bodies to have due regard to eliminating harassment and discrimination, it imposes no specific duty to respond to incidents to support those affected. Nor does it require any reporting to Parliament. I recognise that the NHS existing equality frameworks are important, but they do not adequately address the particular challenges facing Jewish Jewish staff and patients.

The Workforce Race Equality Standard compares the experiences of white staff with those of minority ethnic minority staff, at most, as most Jewish staff identify their ethnicity as white. Antisemitism is largely invisible in this data. Indeed, the finding I quoted earlier came from the NHS Staff survey breakdown by religion, not from the standard. My Lords, the position for patients is even more concerning. The patient and carer race equality framework applies only to mental health services, while the Equality and Health inequalities impact assessments carried out by NHS bodies depends on the quality of available data. Yet the NHS does not routinely record patients religion in any national patient data set.

Where this information is collected, it is generally done locally and inconsistently, whether on hospital admission for chaplaincy purposes or in certain GP and mental health records. We therefore have no means of identifying discrimination against Jewish staff through the staff survey and electronic, other than through the staff survey and electronic staff record. This creates a significant accountability gap. Jewish patients are therefore largely invisible in ethnicity based assessments, as their religious identity is rarely captured in patient data. If we cannot identify where discrimination is occurring, how can we reasonably expect the NHS bodies to address it? That is precisely why amendment 258 would require the annual report to include data broken down by religion as well as ethnicity.

It is also why I hope the government will act on Lord Mance recommendation to introduce Jewish and Sikh categories, which it says it's still considering. These are necessary steps towards ensuring that antisemitism is properly identified, measured and addressed across the Health service. Amendment 79 would ensure the Secretary of State's annual assessment of each Integrated Care Board covers how well it's met that duty. Some boards, such as NHS Birmingham and Solihull, have already taken this on voluntarily and been accredited with the Race Equality Code quality mark and I pay tribute to them. But accountability for race equality should not depend on which board happens to serve a patient's area.

Amendment 29 concerns the education and training duty. This bill transfers from NHS England to the Secretary of State. It would require that training to include recognising, preventing and responding to anti-Semitism and other forms of racism as recommendations. 32 to 36 of the review set out. Some of this already sits in the NHS core skills guidance, but that guidance is owned by the body. This bill is winding down. If the duty moves, the commitment should move with it. I want to say a word about what training should look like. Too much equality training has left anti-Semitism out altogether or worse, has plagued placed Jews outside the protection it claims to offer.

A tick tock tick box module completed alone at a screen, in my experience, is unlikely to change behaviour again. In my experience, caring for doctors, attitudes change with time and it needs the space and time to reflect with one's peers. That is why Lord Mann called for quality assured content developed with subject experts, and for its impact to be monitored and reported publicly. The government's progress update confirmed that a new model module covering anti-Semitism, anti-Muslim hostility, is being finalised. Amendment 29 secures this duty, and I would welcome the minister's assurance that the training will meet these standards.

Finally, amendment 259 touches my own part, the part of my own profession directly. Every GP in England, myself included, must be on a performers list to practise. At present, conditions can be placed on a practitioners inclusion on that list on efficiency grounds, but not on suitability grounds. Recommendation 26 asks the government to change that so it can address racist and extremist conduct directly. This is a modest amendment, my Lords. It acts only that the government tell Parliament within six months whether it intends to amend the regulations. And if not, why not? These are probing amendments, and I do not intend to press them to a vote.

But I have four questions for the Minister. First, I welcome the government's first progress update published on the 27th of October. But it describes next June's report as the final one. Will the Minister commit to continuing to report to Parliament every year after that, as amendment 258 would require? Second, will the government ensure that the NHS staff survey data on discrimination is published by religion as well as by ethnicity? Third, will the Minister confirm that the consultation on protected characteristics data planned for early 2027 will include Jewish and Sikh categories, as Lord Mann recommended. And last, when will the government amend the performance list regulations as recommended in in in recommendation 26.

My Lords, none of these amendments asked the government to do anything that is not already agreed to. They ask it to enshrine that acceptance in law. Jewish patients and staff need to know that the NHS is. For them. These amendments would help ensure that it is. Thank you. And I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

seven. Page four. Line 31 at end. Insert the words as printed in the Marshalled List. My Lords, Lord Shinkwin is taking part remotely. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

invite the noble Lord to speak. My Lord, I rise to speak to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, I rise to speak to support amendment 29 and other amendments in this group. I would amendments in this group. I would like to say that it is a pleasure to follow the Baroness Bi Baroness

21:07

Lord Shinkwin (Conservative)

- -

Gerada, but it is a mixed one. That is not a reflection on the noble is not a reflection on the noble Baroness. Rather, it is a reflection of my disbelief that we reflection of my disbelief that we are even having to raise this Christmas. But raise it we must. Christmas. But raise it we must. And so I thank the Lord Bowness and the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Austin and Dudley, for giving your Lordships' House the opportunity to consider it. I said disbelief, because I cannot imagine that those noble Lords who helped pass Labour's Race Relations Act could ever have envisaged that.

61 years later, we should be debating whether it is necessary for the government to take measures to counter the shocking anti-Jewish racism that stars our NHS, a founding principle of which is solid equality. My thoughts as a lifelong patient who owes so much to the NHS, I would say that for such a treasured institution to apply that principle in practice must mean that the provision of healthcare is made in an environment in which all feel safe and mutually respected. Both patients and staff alike. The reason why I believe this amendment is essential is because, sadly, some feel neither on account of their Jewish identity.

My Lords, I would hope that it's generally recognised that racism is wrong, but I'm less sure about is that anti-Semitism is recognised as racism. Adolf Hitler was very clear. His virulent hatred of Jewish people was racist. Indeed, he was so passionate about his racism that he made it a central tenet of Nazi treat, which, as we sadly all know, underpinned and informed the Holocaust. Jews were to be murdered for the crime of being Jewish. It therefore strikes me as bizarre that anyone could either delude themselves or seek to delude someone else, for example, on social media, that anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism is somehow not racist.

This is simply factually incorrect, which is why the recommendations made in Lord Monks review and the amendments in this group are so important. My Lords, I wonder if the noble Baroness Symons Stone, her response to the. Saw the House that the third aspect of training mentioned in the amendment that of responding to anti-Semitism will include reference to historical facts such as the fact that the Jewish people have a historical claim to the land of Israel, that Israel has a long history. That. Biblical records about the construction of the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem, for example, which is believed to have existed between the 10th and sixth centuries BC, bear testimony to this that the Jews were dispersed from their homeland by the Romans almost 2000 years ago, that perhaps no other race has been subjected to such extreme prejudice and barbaric persecution in the history of humanity that, given the history of how Jewish people have been treated, Israel has learned that there is only one country on which it can rely to defend its interests.

Most recently, in the face of the egregious fabrication that the tragedy of Gaza is the genocide is Israel. In short, my voice, tongue and Baroness Symons to assure the House that any training on the need to respond and to how to respond to anti-Semitism and other forms of racism will be informed by. Not divorced from factual, historical context. My Lords, in conclusion, there is another reason why I support these amendments. I need to stop it. Excuse me. After he had passed away, that my childhood orthopaedic consultants who played such a vital part in optimising my life chances, fled for his life on the last Kindertransport to leave Prague before the Nazis closed the borders in June 39th.

Records show that the family members who left behind were murdered at Auschwitz only two years ago. So within the lifetime of some members of your Lordships' House. Hans Beisel left with that memory for the rest of his life. I'm not Jewish, but for me, his memory will always be a blessing. It is a recognition of a debt that I owe to him, and indeed which I believe many of us owe to members of our wonderful Jewish community, particularly those who have dedicated their skills and their lives to the NHS, that I support this important group of amendments.

I hope the government will give it the careful

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consideration it deserves. Yes, my Lords. I rise to to move

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, my Lords. I rise to to move amendment 279 C standing in my name in the Order Paper. Now, this new clause would require statutory regulators of health and care professions to remove from their professional registers. Any practitioner found to have engaged practitioner found to have engaged in antisemitic behaviour or speech, as defined in my amendment itself.

21:14

Lord Blencathra (Conservative)

- -

as defined in my amendment itself. It would also make clear that removal from the register is a mandatory sanction and cannot be replaced by a lesser penalty. The amendment is founded upon a simple principle medicine depends upon trust. Every day, patients place themselves in the hands of doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals. They disclose intimate details of their lives. They place themselves in vulnerable situations they trust they will be treated fairly, equally and without prejudice, regardless of their race, religion, ethnicity, nationality or beliefs. That trust is not optional. My Lords. It is fundamental to the practice of medicine.

If patients lose confidence that they will be treated impartially, the doctor patient relationship is damaged. If an entire community begins to doubt that healthcare professionals regard them as deserving of equal dignity and respect, confidence in the healthcare system itself is undermined. That is why racism has no place in medicine. That is why antisemitism has no place in medicine, and that is why this amendment is necessary. Now, some may ask why Parliament needs to legislate. Unfortunately, recent events have demonstrated the problem. We have seen healthcare professionals publicly posting material that repeats classic antisemitic tropes, promotes conspiracy theories about Jews, celebrates violence against Israelis, or portrays Jews collectively as evil or uniquely malevolent malevolent.

Well, let me just quote for examples. Now, these are not hypothetical. I have here the names of the individual doctors who have made these comments. I will not reveal them to the House. I will not enter them in the record. But these are not hypothetical cases. They are real ones. One of these consultants, a paediatrician, was suspended after displaying a placard associating the Star of David with words such as rape, kill and lie, and after making repeated references to alleged Jewish supremacy, regulators concluded that such behaviour was undermining public confidence and causing patients to question whether they could receive fair treatment.

Another doctor was suspended while allegations were investigated that included antisemitic conspiracy theories, support for terrorist organisations and repeated references to Jewish supremacy. The tribunal expressly noted concerns that patients might be discouraged from seeking treatment. A further doctor was suspended after posting comments directed at Jews that were plainly abusive and anti-Semitic, alongside material invoking conspiracy theories about Jewish influence. And another case a doctor made social media posts joking about the gassing of Jews and sympathy for Holocaust denial. Material was permitted to continue after regulatory proceedings. My Lords, I think these are despicable people. I wouldn't want them sticking any elastoplast on me, let alone treating other patients.

My Lord, these examples are not cited because the individuals held controversial political opinions. I'm citing them because in a democratic society, people are entitled to support Israel, support Palestine, criticise governments and participate in political debate. This amendment is not about foreign policy. It's not about whether one supports Israel or Palestine. It's not about criticism of the government of Israel. This amendment concerns something entirely different. It concerns expressions of hatred, prejudice, conspiracy theories and collective hostility directed against Jews just because they happen to be Jews. It concerns conduct that would rightly be condemned if directed against any other ethnic or religious minority.

Indeed, I should point out that the definition contained in this amendment is not some novel creation of my own. The wording is drawn directly from the definition and examples of anti-Semitism reasonably adopted and promoted by the Labour government themselves. It's the Labour Party's definition. It reflects long established understandings of antisemitic hatred, including Holocaust denial, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, demonisation of Jews as a people, and holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the state of Israel. Therefore, I say, my Lord, if the government accepts that these behaviours are described and the statements I've mentioned constitute antisemitism in public life, it's difficult to argue that healthcare professionals who engage in such conduct should nevertheless continue to hold positions that depend entirely upon trust and confidence.

If the definition is good enough for government policy, it should be good enough for professional regulation. Again, I emphasise that these examples are not about political disagreement. We would not tolerate such conduct if it were directed against black patients, Muslim patients, Hindu patients, Sikh patients or any other minority group, or Scots or hereditary peers or women. We would not tolerate it in those circumstances. Therefore, we should not tolerate it when it's directed against Jewish patients. My Lords. The real test is not whether a particular Jewish patient can prove that they've received inferior treatment, because by that stage, the damage has already been done.

The real question is whether a reasonable Jewish patient who discovers that their doctor has publicly expressed antisemitic views could still have confidence that they will receive treatment which is fair, impartial and free from prejudice. If the answer to that question is no, then continued registration becomes incompatible with fitness to practise as a doctor. So this amendment is not primarily about punishment. It's about patient protection. It's about maintaining confidence in the profession. It's about ensuring that every patient can enter a hospital, clinic or GP surgery, knowing they'll be treated solely according to clinical need and not through the lens of racial or religious prejudice.

The current regulatory framework allows a wide range of sanctions. My contention is that anti-Semitism should be treated like any other serious form of racism in a profession built entirely on trust. Healthcare professionals enjoy the same political freedoms as everyone else, and rightly so. But professional registration is not an unconditional right. It is a privilege. Society grants that privilege subject to certain standards. Just as we will not tolerate any doctor expressing racial hatred towards black patients or or anti-Muslim hatred towards Muslim patients. We should not tolerate anti-Semitic hatred towards Jewish patients. Now, my Lords, let me make it clear that overwhelming majority of doctors, nurses and healthcare professionals serve patients with distinction, compassion and complete impartiality, and they too, have an interest in ensuring that those patients that ensure that those who promote relation, religious hatred or racial hatred do not bring the profession into disrepute.

My Lords, this amendment protects not only Jewish patients, but the reputation of doctors themselves. It establishes a clear and consistent principle. If a healthcare professional is found to have engaged in antisemitic behaviour or speech, as defined in my amendment, and by reference to the government's own definition, removal from the register should follow. The NHS cannot function without trust. Antisemitism destroys that trust. I commend my amendment to the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords following the Lord Blencathra. I certainly hope that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I certainly hope that the regulator's following Lord Mance review and I think the government, in setting the recommendations of in setting the recommendations of the review, are expecting the regulators to certainly toughen up their act, and I agree with the their act, and I agree with the sort of thrust of where Lord Blencathra is coming from, whether, my Lords, all discretion should be my Lords, all discretion should be taken away from regulators. I very much doubt, but it would be interesting to hear what my noble friend has to say on that.

And in supporting Baroness Gerada

21:22

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour)

- -

amendment, I just wanted to just reflect on on two points. One is just to repeat what she said, which just to repeat what she said, which I thought was very striking arising from Lord Mance report, which is from Lord Mance report, which is that drawing on the NHS staff survey, Jewish staff are the only religious group where religious group where discrimination from managers and colleagues exceeds discrimination from patients. This is a very from patients. This is a very serious indication of the stress and pressure on Jewish staff within the NHS, and I'm afraid so far the response from management, I think, has been pretty poor, and I think we've seen that in relation to what we might call uniform policy.

And as Lord Mann described it, examples of the brandishing of badges, display of uniforms on political marches, or the co-branding of the NHS by staff or others with third parties, has made it unclear what patients can expect from the NHS. And I think patients are entitled to be treated without seeing staff display any political leanings whatsoever or support for campaigns. And I mean, I find it if if teacher teachers are simply not allowed to do this, one has to ask oneself, what is it with NHS employers that they have failed to actually put across to their staff that a behaviour that should be expected of them?

Now, my understanding is that I mean Lord Mann clearly called for NHS England to do a review of what you might call their uniform policy. It's not the standardised uniform but what people wear, how they display it. My understanding is that that work is being undertaken. It's subject to consultation, but I just hope that when it comes out, it's not going to be wilfully waffly and sort of leaves just too much discretion to local employers. I really think, particularly now the government is taking this over, because I doubt it will be finished before 1st of April next year, but they actually make it abundantly clear to NHS employers what should and what should not be expected.

I mean, I know Manchester has been quoted as being a very good example, but I mean, you know, some trusts do not. As man said, some trusts do not permit the wearing of political badges, the wearing any item of clothing with a political message or wearing of a uniform to political rallies. And I would have thought, we need to see something really firm about this. So the employer themselves are implementing what has been required from the centre, and I think for them to it would be much easier than going through the agony of developing local policies, subject to consultation, and then leading to a variation.

At the end of the day, patients and staff are entitled to work in an environment where somebody else's views, political views are actually are not displayed in a way which causes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

huge upset and concern. My Lords, I. Understand and support.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The aims and the sentiment. Behind this group of amendments, particularly amendment 29 and two, particularly amendment 29 and two, five, eight. Any form of discrimination and racism is discrimination and racism is abhorrent. However, once I identify how one identifies oneself how one identifies oneself shouldn't be a problem. Anti-Semitism is not acceptable. I thought it may be helpful to remind us of some figures, as sadly, racism and discrimination remain embedded. Challenges within the NHS affecting both staff and patients. As Baroness Gerada has acknowledged. It's worth noting that 28.6% of NHS staff in 2024 were from ethnic minority backgrounds.

That's over. Or around 450,000 people. Yet only 12.7% of very senior managers came

21:26

Baroness Manzoor (Conservative)

- -

from these backgrounds. And the two from these backgrounds. And the two 225 NHS staff survey found ethnic minority staff were more likely to minority staff were more likely to experience discrimination from managers and colleagues. That's managers and colleagues. That's 13.93% than white staff, which 13.93% than white staff, which stood at 6.51%. 29.6% of ethnic minority staff experienced harassment, bullying or abuse from patients and the public, compared with 23.54% of white staff. So it's important to further strengthen legislation. As my Lord, there are gaps. The Equality Act of 2010 prohibits racial discrimination, harassment and victimisation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

However, significant weaknesses remain. The public sector equality remain. The public sector equality duty requires organisations to have due regard to equality but does not due regard to equality but does not guarantee measurable improvements. The NHS equality standards lack sufficient and meaningful consequences for persistent consequences for persistent institutional discrimination. Will the Minister consider how the government can strengthen these further, particularly as reporting, investigating and addressing racism remains inconsistent with inadequate protections and support for whistleblowers? How will the government address this? There is no sufficiently robust uniform accountability framework, ensuring perpetrators and senior leaders leaders face consequences.

As Baroness Gerada stated, will the government consider developing such a framework in relation to all forms of discrimination? This would also support Lord Vallance 2026 review, which reinforces the need for stronger investigations, transparency and organisational

**** Possible New Speaker ****

accountability. I rise very briefly just to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise very briefly just to offer maybe two practical issues that I've used in the past. I that I've used in the past. I strongly support the intentions around these amendments. I think the two practical issues are the two practical issues are leadership and accountability, and the protection of those who speak

21:29

Lord Patel of Bradford (Non-affiliated)

- -

the protection of those who speak out. Tackling anti-Semitism and racism must be a clear responsibility of NHS leadership. I'd like to see this, and I've done this in the past to include these issues in the performance objectives of every chief executive in the NHS, and the boards will be required to monitor those objectives as well as hold themselves to account as well as the executive's. I'm sure the CQC could incorporate this into their well-led review and make sure it does happen. It's not enough to have policies and training programmes. We need to know whether they're making a difference and who's responsible when they're not.

Secondly, we must protect those who report racism or anti-Semitism. Too often, staff are reluctant to speak out because they fear the consequences for their careers or their relationship with colleagues. We need clear reporting arrangements. Protection against victimisation and retaliation. An independent routes for raising concerns where senior managers themselves may be involved. I hope the noble Baroness, the Minister, can agree that we should hold boards and NHS chief execs to account and properly protect those who call this out.

21:30

Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Lord Oates there's just a very quick thing which may be practical to deal with some of the issues to deal with some of the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra has raised and other noble Lords have raised regarding noble Lords have raised regarding staff neutrality, because that's what we're talking about here. Staff neutrality. Wouldn't it be Staff neutrality. Wouldn't it be wise, rather than to go through a long process with. This, is actually it becomes part of the NHS constitution that staff have to be neutral in terms of how they deal with fellow staff and patients who they come into contact with.

And I would ask the noble Lady, the Minister, to consider that seriously when when she not just reports back today, but when she reports back at Report stage. It's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

just a practical suggestion. Could I just very. Briefly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Briefly. Support that suggestion that's come from the noble Lord Lord Scriven? Because as I was listening Scriven? Because as I was listening to the debate, I was thinking about people who come and told me about people who come and told me about feeling discriminated against. And one of the things is that they

21:31

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)

- -

one of the things is that they don't declare their racial or religious or whatever view, because they're actually terrified of being further labelled and further discriminated against. And I think the comments that were made by the noble Lord Lord Shinkwin about the history and the history for the Jewish people, where there were lists of who was Jewish, and particularly in the Netherlands, and that was rapidly exploited in order to round them up with speed and persecute them further. And I think that's a very deep seated fear in a lot of these people. And the other fear that there is, is that actually, if they do disclose that they've been discriminated against, there will be other forms of them being undermined, which actually make their life even harder.

And I can think of specific examples again, that have brought have been brought to my attention. So I really would commend that as, as a solution and a way forwards.

21:32

Baroness Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords, this group of amendments is incredibly important. I'd like to thank Baroness Gerada I'd like to thank Baroness Gerada for tabling them and her powerful words about both Jewish staff and words about both Jewish staff and patients and the experience they have with with the data. She also have with with the data. She also presented in different ways. All of these amendments are trying to ensure all parts of the NHS stamp out anti-Semitism and racism, and provide the right training on anti-Semitism. Racism, as recommended by the Lord Mann review. I completely agree with Lord hunt about the point he was raising, about the uniform that staff wear and the neutrality point, and I recall several years ago, the Metropolitan Police had a huge issue with badges that that officers started to wear as part for charities like help for heroes.

And actually they, they were ruled out of order. They were not allowed to wear them. And I think it's a similar type thing. And there's just been sort of creep in uniforms over the years and what is acceptable or not. And I think actually, you know, we need to make sure that all staff are seen and behave in a neutral way. I think it's really important. Assessing the performance of ICBs, the amendment on that, and ensuring trusts have a duty to prevent and respond to this. And I think this will ensure it's integral to these organisations, but also the real leadership point that was raised by the noble Lord earlier.

We on these benches fully support the review and the implementation of its recommendations. And I do think my noble friend. Suggestion Lord Scriven practical suggestion about the NHS Constitution is certainly a good idea and worthy of consideration by the Minister. I hope the government will look at how best to implement these amendments, whether as worded or in a different way, and I look forward to the noble Lady. The Minister's response. My Lords, this looked like a very serious group of

21:34

Baroness Cash (Conservative)

- -

amendments on paper, but it did not really emerge until we had the debate. Quite how grave the gaps debate. Quite how grave the gaps are in the current situation in the NHS. I've thanked the noble NHS. I've thanked the noble Baroness, Lady Garrard, for bringing the amendments and the noble Lords who have spoken to them noble Lords who have spoken to them this evening, and I also pay tribute to the noble Lord Lord Mann for his review, and to the government for accepting the recommendations which everyone in all benches in the House appear to accept unreservedly.

I sympathise and and support the intent of every amendment in the Group, and particularly support amendment 79, 258 and 259. Given the gaps that they highlight and the urgent need to close those, even in light of what the government has accepted. It's quite apparent that shocking levels of anti-Semitism are continuing, and there needs to be some urgent interventions to stop that. This I spoke quite recently in this House on Sir David Bell's review of the levels of anti-Semitism in schools, and it's really quite sad and a shame for this country that Lord Mann's review shows the same pattern in the NHS.

There is clearly a major problem, and it is racism, plain and simple, directed at Jews. And too many institutions are tolerating it in a way they would never tolerate it against any other group. The facts are devastating. Community Security Trust recorded 3700 antisemitic incidents in 2025, the second highest total ever recorded. And in the 2025 NHS Staff Survey. As we've heard, 13% of Jewish staff recorded discrimination from their own managers or colleagues. That's intolerable in your workplace. How can anyone possibly feel safe going about their day to day interactions? Jewish staff we've heard from a number of noble Lords this evening that they're the only religious group, the only ethnic group for whom discrimination from colleagues is more common.

Discrimination from patients hostility is coming from inside the institution, and it's therefore beholden on us to debating this bill, not to miss the opportunities to address this and close the gaps. The commission and anti-Semitism found Jewish patients considering whether they should remove their religious symbols before treatment. Imagine feeling so unsafe in a health care setting when you're at your most vulnerable, that you may have to conceal or consider concealing that about your your identity. Patients who feel they have to hide who they are in order to be treated have lost trust in the NHS. They've lost faith that their doctors will do no harm.

The first and basic premise of healthcare. And they've lost confidence that they will be safe and the regulator hasn't done its job, which is why I support these amendments. Even though the government has actions in progress, and even though they've accepted the recommendations of Lord Mance review, around 70% of completed appeals by the GMC against tribunals have succeeded. And we know that if the regulator is succeeding, it's seven times out of ten. There is something fundamentally wrong in the disciplinary decisions. So I won't repeat what's been said already by noble Lords in support of their amendments.

But I will say this, that we should give serious consideration to Lord Scriven's proposal so that we can address the fundamental issue here, which is a loss of neutrality and an open, overt willingness to attack colleagues and patients on the basis of their Jewish identity. And my noble friend Lord Blencathra went even further in his amendment. 279 C and I look forward to hearing the noble Baroness. The minister's response to that, where he. He did outline the very serious reasons why he's asked for that. And those reasons and those facts do need to be addressed on amendment 29 regarding training, I do support Lord Mance recommendation that it's needed, but he was very specific in what he asked for.

He called for the mandatory module used by 1.5 million staff already to be updated with quality assured content on anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hostility. He added that subject experts be consulted and that the training be monitored and reported on publicly to ensure it has the desired impact. But I have real reservations about the training that would be possible under amendment 29, because it doesn't contain any of Lord Mann safeguards as currently drafted. That doesn't mean we shouldn't consider the training that's needed or expedite it. The record of quality equality training in the public sector gives really good reason for us to take care.

In 2020, the government phased out unconscious bias training in the civil service after a review, found no evidence that it changed behaviour and some NHS anti-racism training has left out antisemitism entirely. Moorfields Eye Hospital compulsory anti-racism seminar was reported last year to have made no mention of Jews at all, and training built on theories of privilege has too often placed Jews among the privileged, and so, outside the protection it claims to offer. So there are lots of types of training which will make the problem a lot worse. And so I would really like to hear from the noble Baroness, the Minister, about what types of training, what suppliers and what accountability and monitoring there will be for anything that's being developed currently.

It's also very important to note that Lord Mann recommended mandatory training for the chairs and chief executives of NHS trusts within six months of his review, but the government's same statement in response to his review said senior leaders would be invited to complete it by March 2027. I really hope the noble Baroness, the Minister, will explain for noble Lords why a recommendation for mandatory training became an invitation to train and buy when that training will be completed by all chairs and CEOs of the NHS trusts, as recommended.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it's grateful to noble Lords across the House for their sensitive consideration of something which is very insensitive something which is very insensitive and that is dealing with anti-Semitism and other forms of racism. But I know the words spoken today, the sentiments and the commitments will resonate across commitments will resonate across communities in a way that will make a difference. And I personally am most grateful for that. I also am grateful to my noble friend Lord Mann for his review, and indeed to the former Secretary of State, Wes Streeting, for listening to the voices that made the situation that people live with day in, day out quite intolerable.

And by commissioning that review, and I do believe that's set the tone. As the noble Lady Baroness Gerada observed from the outset, the recommendation from Lord man's review, we have accepted in full, and we are taking action to deliver. And as was referred to, we did provide our latest update last month. But I should say I do believe that this is a work that is continuing. So I understand that noble Lords are asking for more to be done, and indeed there is no let up on it. But I you know, I just want to sort of council that we want to get this right, of course, but to attend to the amendments, my Lords, with permission, I would like to address amendments.

297925, 8259 and 279 C together. And let me say the what we have all said, but always bears saying there is no place for discrimination, no place for anti-Semitism, no place for racism within our NHS. And as noble Lords have said, patients and staff and those associated with them have to be free from all all forms of racism and religious hatred and indeed fear of it as well as the actuality. And that is to the core of these amendments and this debate. I did want to refer the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, to the point that Ministers we have asked all NHS bodies to adopt the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism and receiving a good response, and we will continue on that.

Turning to amendment 29, I can assure the noble Lady Baroness Gerada, that we are taking forward work to strengthen leadership accountability, but also to improve the reporting and handling of racist incidents and and the noble Lord Lord Shinkwin and other noble Lords picked up this point. Enhance workforce training. And I'll say a few words on that in a moment. Also to improve data collection and

21:45

Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)

- -

ensure greater consistency across the health system, something I know that is of concern to my noble that is of concern to my noble friend Lord hunt, along with other noble Lords. But to the Baroness Gerada. First of all, improving the data we hold is absolutely key. So we are developing the Unified Information Standard for Protected Characteristics program that will improve the consistency and quality of data on protected characteristics, including ethnicity and religion or belief, and that will apply to both patients and the workforce. The Baron, the noble Lady, asked about the inclusion of Jewish and Sikh categories in data collection.

That isn't currently the case, as the noble Lady is aware, but the consultation I've just referred to will include reference to the possibility of including Jewish and Sikh character categories as the noble Lady was referring to, and in terms of training, meeting these standards, meeting the right standards which the noble Lady Baroness Gerada, the noble Lady, Baroness Cash, and the noble Lord Lord Shinkwin referred to the new NHS Training Module module on equality, diversity and human rights is being finalised over the coming months and that does include content on anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hostility alongside. And I do think this is important guidance on challenging prejudice and discrimination, because it should not be down to the affected groups to be the ones who are making that challenge.

In respect of the point that my noble friend Lord hunt referred to about physical. What I might refer to as physical displays of political leanings. For example, badges. We are looking at how we provide clearer guidance regarding the issues that Lord Mann raised about what he described as as staff uniforms and new national guidance will be published on that. The noble Lady Baroness Manzoor asked about a framework which reflects transparency and organisational accountability, and the six mandated NHS staff standards, which were introduced in July under the ten year health plan, are in are aimed at improving staff experience and they do require employers to take sustained, meaningful action to not just root out racism, but prevent it.

And I do think we should apply ourselves to that as well. The noble Lord Lord Scriven also spoke, and this was painted by the Baroness noble Ladies, Baroness Finlay, Baroness Pidgeon and Baroness Cash, about consideration, about staff neutrality. And I thank him for that. I mean, we are clear that staff do have to demonstrate the core values of the NHS and and demonstrate new neutrality in the workplace. I'd actually go further. I don't know if I'd use the word neutrality as an issue about just neutrality as an issue about just fairness. Here and without fear or favour, I think might be the other expression to.

And yes, of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My point was, if it is such an important value neutrality. Let me give an example. You may not be discriminatory. You have somebody discriminatory. You have somebody who's Jewish, somebody who's Muslim, someone's Christian and someone of no faith, and you treat them all equally. But you've actually got something on your body which offends two. Well, not offends two offends two. Well, not offends two of them, but actually isn't neutral to two of them. You are therefore to two of them. You are therefore possibly going to be treating that person differently from their perspective. Therefore, if it's such an if neutrality and fairness is such an important value for the NHS, all I ask the noble Lady, the Minister is seriously, go away and look at putting it as a key component in the NHS Constitution

**** Possible New Speaker ****

because it isn't there at the moment. And I do take the point, and I certainly accept the spirit in which the noble Lord is suggesting it. And in all the points that have been discussed, I will be taking been discussed, I will be taking them away to see if there is any way we can work with it, rather way we can work with it, rather than extend a debate on what neutrality means. Because I do know neutrality means. Because I do know what the noble Lord is. Getting at. And it's it's helpful that he has given thought to that.

If I might turn to the amendment two, five, eight NHS bodies are already subject to clear legal duties to prevent and address discrimination and racial harassment, alongside established responsibilities to tackle extremism and to safeguard patients and staff in a technical fashion. I would certainly caution against adding further legal duties here. Reason being, it does risk confusion about what we expect ICBs and trusts to do, and I know that isn't something that any of us would wish to do on amendment 259, we have accepted Lord Mance recommendation to consider amending the performance List regulations, which would enable conditions to be imposed on suitability grounds.

So we intend to amend the regulations subject to consultation, but I would say that the amendment is unnecessary, as the government is already taking forward the substance of the amendment, and it would also impose a six month statutory deadline before the necessary consultation and consideration have taken place, whereas we do have to allow sufficient time to make sure that any changes are legally robust, proportionate and workable. Nor would we wish to pre-empt consultation by committing, in this moment on how particular forms of conduct should be addressed in the regulations. Turning to regulation 279 C under NHS staff Standards, which, as I referred to the noble Lady Baroness Manzoor comments, they were launched on 6th July.

Employers must take sustained and meaningful action to prevent and root out racism. NHS organisations will be measured on this through the National Oversight Framework. In addition, and I say this to the noble Lord Lord Blencathra, there are already regulatory processes in place to which all registered healthcare professionals are subject regulatory, fitness, fitness to practise processes do allow concerns about misconduct to be investigated. They allow evidence to be considered and the appropriate regulatory action, which could indeed include removal from the register to be determined in each clay case and the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care acts as an independent body in this regard to make sure that regulators do apply the right sanctions and where it considers a decision does not provide sufficient public protection.

It has the powers to refer the decision to the courts for consideration, and, if I could, enduring this together, say to the noble Lady Baroness Gerada and the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, I can assure you Lordships house, we are ensuring that ICBs and providers are fulfilling their duties and the key means to do that is through performance assessments. I would gently caution against adding additional criteria to the current approach, because it is important that assessments have sufficient flexibility to adapt to the evolving role of ICBs and strategic commissioners, which, after all, is at the heart of this bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd like to thank the noble Baroness Barran of that very detailed and thorough answer. Can I detailed and thorough answer. Can I just can I just check with her that in the midst of what she said, she did make clear that the NHS, that NHS staff and NHS providers are NHS staff and NHS providers are under a legal obligation to ensure that all the protected characteristics under the Equality characteristics under the Equality Act are treated properly and with respect. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They should absolutely have regard to the law in respect of protected characteristics is protected characteristics is probably the most full answer I can give at this stage. Sorry. At this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

moment, yes. Thank you, my Lords. I'm grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken and to the Minister for her assurances. I just want to make a few very brief comments because I'm aware of the time I'm struck by

21:55

Baroness Gerada (Crossbench)

- -

I'm aware of the time I'm struck by Lord Shinkwin, and if I heard him correctly, his orthopaedic surgeon was on the last Kindertransport out from Prague, and our own Lord Dodds was also on the last Kindertransport from Prague, as was my father in law. As is the coincidences that happen in this life. I just want to make another comment. I am not Jewish, but I have been subject to anti-Semitism because I suspect that people assume I am Jewish and I have been left fearful, hurt, angry all those emotions and not knowing where to take them.

So if I experienced that, then I can see that my Jewish colleagues experience it in spades. I work in the NHS. I can tell you that anti-Semitism has become normalised, and whilst the figures that we've shown of 13 and 11% are pretty awful, I suspect they're considerably higher than that because it has become almost a de facto that one can abuse Jewish colleagues, not necessarily Jewish patients, because I think you're subject to greater regulatory regulatory forces, but certainly Jewish patients in the last 12 to 18 months have been subjected to quite appalling behaviour from colleagues that they work with.

So anti-Semitism has been normalised and almost accepted. But nevertheless, I thank the Minister. I hope that the training doesn't become a tick box exercise that does include issues that we've heard from, again from Lord Shinkwin. And I beg I may wish to return to this issue at Report

**** Possible New Speaker ****

stage, but at this stage I beg to leave and withdraw the amendment. Is it your Lordships pleasure?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships pleasure? This amendment may withdraw. An amendment is by leave withdrawn. The question is that clause seven

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that clause seven stand part of the Bill, as many of that opinion will say content. Content. The contrary not content. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it. My Lords, I. Beg to leave this House. Do now adjourn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

adjourn. The question is that the House be resumed, as many of that opinion will say. Content, content. The contrary not content. The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Let's try that again. Apologies, my Lords, I, I, I beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Apologies, my Lords, I, I, I beg this House to an allergen.

This debate has concluded

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page