Religious Hate Crime
Lord Singh of Wimbledon Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
A new definition, which the Government will work towards, must be given careful consideration so that it comprehensively reflects multiple perspectives and considers the potential implications for different communities. We understand the strength of feeling on the issue of the APPG’s definition, and we want to make sure that any definition comprehensively reflects multiple perspectives. We are actively considering our approach to Islamophobia, including definitions, and will provide further updates in due course.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, the hate crime that captures the headlines often has a political dimension where religions are involved, such as in the Middle East. Although serious, it is transitory. More serious is the hate crime of religion on religion, with claims of God-given superiority. Does the Minister agree that open dialogue between religions on the actual teachings—I do not mean just having tea and samosas, which is the usual thing—would help identify important commonalities that can strengthen cohesion in society?
Anti-Muslim Prejudice and Hate Crime
Lord Singh of Wimbledon Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, there are no comparative statistics to show that Muslims suffer more from irrational prejudice than, say, any member of the Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist faiths. To borrow from Shakespeare, if a member of those other faiths is cut, do they not bleed? Will the Minister confirm that the Government will be even-handed in looking at the needs and concerns of all religions and those of no faith?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I say in response to the noble Lord’s important points that all forms of racial and religious discrimination are completely unacceptable and have no place in our communities. This Government will explore a more integrated and cohesive approach to tackling it. We are committed to protecting the right of individuals to freely practise their religion and we will not tolerate religious hatred in any form towards any religion.
Inter Faith Network
Lord Singh of Wimbledon Excerpts(9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, it is not just this Government; successive Governments of different colours have had a long-standing policy of non-engagement with the MCB. British Muslims are a crucial part of Britain’s history and our way of life in Britain today. Each and every Muslim in every community in every corner of the United Kingdom should know that their religion will never act as a barrier to achieving their ambitions. The Government recognise the discrimination and intolerance faced by British Muslims, particularly at this time. We will not tolerate anti-Muslim hatred in any form and will seek to stamp it our wherever it occurs. This does not mean, however, that the Government have to use public funds to support the influence of organisations such as the MCB. We have no plans to review this decision.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, I speak as a founder member of the Inter Faith Network back in the 1980s, when it was very difficult to get people of different religions into the same room to talk to each other. That initiative owed much to Brian Pearce, a former civil servant. The Inter Faith Network has done some remarkably good work, particularly in the celebration of the millennium and getting religion in the census. There has been a difficulty in this country in that there is a sort of rule that people cannot talk about religion—people from different religions would come together and talk about anything but the commonalities and differences in their religions. There has been movement in the direction of actually discussing the importance of commonalities and building on them. It is sad that this closure is happening at this time, especially as the reason given is that the board contains a member of the Muslim Council of Britain. It is not a proscribed organisation, and it is better to have people with different views talking together to move the country forward in respect for one another.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I completely agree with the noble Lord that it is important that we have safe places where people of all faiths can discuss the issues surrounding faith and their relationships and to get together in communities. I thank him for his work, including in the early days of the Inter Faith Network. It was funded by the department from 2007 and we have given it £4 million since then. We have always said to it, however—as we say to any organisation that we fund—that it has to diversify its funding streams in order to become sustainable. No organisation can be reliant for ever on government funding, because we just do not know what is going to happen. I cannot reiterate the views of the Government again.
Hate Crimes
Lord Singh of Wimbledon Excerpts(9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I think my noble friend’s experience bears out the statistics that we saw announced by the Community Security Trust last week, showing the highest number of reported anti-Semitic incidents on record in 2023, with the majority of these being reported from 7 October. There is no place on British streets for demonstrations, convoys or flag-waving that glorify terrorism or harass the Jewish community, and we will work closely with the police, who we urge to step up patrols and use all available powers to enforce the law.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, the current practice of giving government funding to more vocal communities to collect figures to show that they are more hated than others is a waste of that funding. Does the Minister agree that a better approach would be to tackle the underlying ignorance on which prejudice thrives by stressing, in the teaching of RE in schools and elsewhere, the large number of important ethical commonalities between different faiths to show that the superficial differences are very insignificant?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government committed to break down the recording of hate crime first by religion and then more recently by race. That provides us with an important insight into the experiences of different communities, which can be quite different across the country. Where I agree with the noble Lord is that part of the solution to some of these issues is focusing on where we have more in common than what divides us. We should emphasise that, particularly in our schools.
Holocaust Memorial Day
Lord Singh of Wimbledon Excerpts(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, I have visited Auschwitz, and a small mountain of children’s shoes will be for ever etched in my memory. The shoes were taken from children who went laughing and skipping into showers, on the promise that they would be given new clothes. The showers were not of water; they were of deadly gas. I speak from a Sikh perspective, and I apologise if what I say does not agree with some people.
On Holocaust Memorial Day, we remember the horror of the systematic killing of Jews in the 1940s with the lighting of candles and the words “never again”. The words “never again” have echoed in subsequent commemorations, only to be followed by the horror of future genocides, including the forgotten Indira Gandhi Government’s massacre of Sikhs in 1984 and now, ironically, Israel’s excesses against the people of Gaza, condemned by the United Nations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other human rights agencies.
“Never again” will continue to be a distant aspiration in a world that has lost its sense of direction and is still living with 19th-century norms of powerful countries pursuing strategic and economic dominance. Friends and enemies are decided by the support they give in return for a readiness to turn a blind eye to the abuse of human rights. To get to “never again”, we urgently need to reset our moral and political satnavs to the realities and ethical imperatives of the very different world in which we now live.
Sikh teachings remind us that, despite superficial cultural differences, we are all members of one human family with equal rights and responsibilities. The UN declaration of human rights, drawn up in the aftermath of the Second World War, is an echo of this 500 year-old Sikh teaching. People of India and Pakistan, Russia and Ukraine, Israel and Palestine, and even Americans, are all part of our one human family, with a common desire for peace for themselves and for their loved ones.
In earlier times, talk of one human family was considered impractical idealism; today it is an imperative. The 21st century is, as I have mentioned, very different from earlier eras, with people in once distant parts of the world now sharing common problems such as global warming, the misuse of scientific advance and a world awash with arms. There is urgent need to look beyond ourselves to the needs of others, or, in the closing lines of the Sikh daily prayer, to look to the well-being of wider humanity.
We urgently need to look at why religion has become a major source of conflict and genocide. Religion is designed to give us guidance for responsible living, but all too often, claims of superiority and exclusive relationships with God, and with dated and divisive social and cultural rituals, are seen by many as more important than the uplifting ethical teachings. The Sikh gurus were very concerned about such false divisions in the India of their day. Sikh scriptures, the Guru Granth Sahib, deliberately include verses of Hindu and Muslim sayings to show that no one religion has a monopoly of truth. Today, we should be highlighting the important ethical teachings found in our different faiths.
The reality is quite different. We British, even at interfaith gatherings, never discuss religion out of fear of offending religious sensitivities. Religious holy books are not the word of God in a literal, possessive sense, but reflections on a godly way of life, interspersed with social and cultural practices and negative attitudes to others. Today, most religious people in the UK skip the dated social and cultural texts and focus on the underlying ethical teachings. But for some, dated culture is all too often more important than ethical guidance, and negative attitudes to others are food and sustenance to the religious extremist.
A Christian hymn reminds us:
“New occasions teach new duties,
Time makes ancient good uncouth ;
They must upward still, and onward,
Who would keep abreast of truth”.
Today, religious leaders urgently need to do a bit of spring cleaning to take out, or put in context or true perspective, the negative teachings and highlight ethical teachings that have much in common with faiths that we see as different. It is a big ask, but it is the only way to go if we really want our one human family to get to “never again”.
People of African Descent in the United Kingdom
Lord Singh of Wimbledon Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
We strongly reject most of the findings, as they wrongly view the people of African descent as a single, homogenous group and present a superficial analysis of complex issues that fails to look at all possible causes of disparities, not just race. We did not feel that the United Kingdom’s strong reputation as one of the fairest and most open-minded countries in the world was properly reflected in the working group’s initial findings, which failed to look fully at all possible causes of disparities, not just race or racism. As our Inclusive Britain strategy and the wider work of this Government demonstrate, instead of sowing division, we must focus on giving every community and individual the opportunity to thrive and to succeed in a country where a person’s racial, social or ethnic background is not a barrier to achieving their ambitions.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in discussing serious issues, we should avoid using terms that blur meaning and fog issues, including words such as “racist”, “race” and “racism”, which suggest that there is a number of finite races in the world? The reality is that there are as many races as there are human beings on earth. Does the Minister further agree that what we are talking about is irrational prejudice, which has to be tackled in schools and the workplace?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord’s last point that, where there are issues in workplaces, in education or in health, we need to tackle them. I also agree with him that there are many races in the world and that everybody is equal.
Islamophobia
Lord Singh of Wimbledon Excerpts(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, part of the difficulty of adopting some of the definitions that are being proposed, including that proposed by the APPG, is that they effectively conflate anti-Muslim hatred and Islamophobia with race. They also do not deal with issues around sectarianism. I completely agree that we want to tackle prejudice that discriminates against people based on who they are.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, a phobia is a fear. An irrational fear of Muslims is best countered by leaders of the community explaining that discrimination against women and violent attitudes to other faiths have nothing to do with Islam. Will the Minister agree with a previous government statement that all faiths and beliefs should be given equal protection, and that giving special consideration to one or two groups at the expense of others is totally contrary to the Government’s levelling-up agenda?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I can give that assurance. We must provide our faiths and beliefs, particularly a religion such as Islam, with the same protections as all other important religions, but we must not make the mistake of conflating religion with race, as I said in the previous answer.
Private Landlords: Tenants with Pets
Lord Singh of Wimbledon Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I am aware of the issue that my noble friend raises. We know how important pets are to many people, particularly rough sleepers. That is why we have supported a number of local schemes enabling people to find accommodation that will also accept pets. Housing authorities need to be sensitive to the importance of pets to some applicants, particularly rough sleepers, and I thank my noble friend for raising this.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
My Lords, depression and loneliness have an adverse impact on health and cost the country millions. Having someone or a pet to look after takes us out of ourselves, and pets have undoubtedly helped mitigate the enforced isolation of the pandemic. Does the Minister agree that a more collaborative approach between landlords and tenants in keeping tenants happy and keeping property in good condition would benefit both?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we agree that it is precisely that which has required a collaborative approach that landlords and tenants can work through to find practical solutions and ensure wider pet ownership in the private rented sector.
Fire Safety: Leaseholder Bankruptcies
Lord Singh of Wimbledon Excerpts(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we are very clear that we expect building owners to make buildings safe and not to pass on costs to leaseholders where possible. We have provided a substantial sum of money to ensure that the costs of cladding will be affordable for those in medium-rises and that those in high-rises will not have to contribute to the remediation of the most dangerous element of the building.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Government’s promise of a building safety Bill to reduce the possibility of future Grenfell-type disasters is welcome, but does the Minister agree that it is an acknowledgement of past national failure to ensure adequate fire safety standards, and that it should be the responsibility of the Government rather than of individuals to meet the cost of urgently needed safety improvements to existing property?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I recognise that this crisis has built up over many decades and that the Government have a duty to step forward and help to a degree, but we must recognise that government funding does not absolve building owners of their responsibility to ensure that their buildings are safe. They should protect leaseholders where they can.
Rent Arrears: Covid-19
Lord Singh of Wimbledon Excerpts(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My noble friend is right that we have seen rents reduce as a result of the pandemic. All the schemes that we have designed cover rent at the level presented by the landlord. Obviously, schemes that we have provided to support renters will reduce as a consequence of reducing rents.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
My Lords, although the excellent furlough scheme has helped to reduce some financial suffering during the pandemic, the reduced incomes of individuals and households have led to increased arrears for many tenants. If we are to avoid the hardships of a rise in homelessness with the ban on evictions due to end this summer, will the Minister consider loans to be used exclusively to clear rent arrears, as has been mentioned by many speakers?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I restate the Government’s position that we are not looking to encourage further debt. I also point to the statistics regarding homelessness. We have seen a 40% decrease in homelessness duty owed in the period between October 2020 and the same period in 2019. We are not seeing that massive spike in homelessness that has been alluded to.