Counter-Extremism Strategy
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington Excerpts(5 days, 23 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for initiating this debate. He has been consistent and persistent in his arguments, which he was also able to spell out in his Times article on Tuesday. The thousand comments, almost all in support, were striking, expressing anxiety and concern about the rise of terrorism and antisemitism, as well as fear, however unjustified, that they—we—no longer feel safe in our streets. This is particularly true for women who worry about their safety walking home at night or even, now, in broad daylight. They fear for their daughters and even their sons, as exemplified by this week’s school knife attack. People are afraid of masked men, crowded tubes, buses. I feel it myself. It is in large part because they—we—do not feel that the Government have a grip and that they have no sense of urgency. Of course, none of us underestimates the challenges faced by government and the security services, but there is a strong sense that as a country we are behind the curve rather than fully aware of and dealing with not only the current challenges but those coming down the track.
More and more people, especially younger friends and acquaintances, spontaneously raise these issues with me. They are concerned about radicalisation, cohesion and integration. They have a strong feeling that they cannot, or generally should not, talk publicly about their worries and fear that they will be judged for doing so, which is why I am speaking today.
My noble friend Lord Goodman and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, mentioned the director of MI5, who confirmed in his threat updates both last October and in 2024 that Islamist extremism remains the most significant terrorism threat to the UK and accounts for 75% of MI5’s case load. I, for one, am very grateful to the security services for holding the line in the most complex and interconnected threat environment ever seen, but there are concerns about whether they have the resources that they need and are collecting the relevant data. This debate is an opportunity for the Government to clarify what they know, what they monitor and where the gaps remain. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the many questions raised today.
Will the Minister confirm that the Government still assess Islamist extremism as the predominant terrorism threat to the UK? The Government’s 2015 review of the Muslim Brotherhood concluded that aspects of its ideology and activities were
“contrary to our values and … national interests”,
and noted expressions of support for terrorist violence by individuals linked to Muslim Brotherhood-influenced organisations. More than a decade later, the Muslim Brotherhood remains legal in the United Kingdom but, since that review, numerous allied states have banned or designated the Muslim Brotherhood or its branches. Hamas, which identifies itself as the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian wing, has shown intent to operate internationally, including in Europe. Will the Minister update us on the Government’s current thinking about the Muslim Brotherhood and on whether the Home Office or MI5 currently monitors Muslim Brotherhood-linked organisations operating in the UK and, if so, on what basis? There is also a big issue around data. Do the Government feel that they have sufficient data on extremism in the UK? Specifically, do they monitor non-terrorist Islamist activities that may nevertheless contribute to radicalisation and intimidation?
Other noble Lords today speak from personal and community experience about antisemitism, but I watch its growth on social media and elsewhere with dismay. My noble friend Lord Finkelstein’s Times article earlier this week spelled out in detail the horrific abuse he has experienced when taking on Nick Fuentes. The viral hate that poured in and continues today—I looked again online this morning—is beyond horrible. Something in this country has changed, is changing, and not for the better.
Domestic Abuse: Victims and Survivors
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, this is a story about how long it takes for good ideas to get on to the statute book before being finally implemented. In February 2010, Kit Malthouse, London’s then deputy mayor for policing, attended a conference and heard about the South Dakota 24/7 sobriety project, the aim of which is to reduce the recidivism of offenders who drive under the influence of alcohol or commit domestic violence when drunk. Between 25% and 50% of domestic violence incidents are linked to alcohol consumption. The project mandates offenders to a period of enforced alcohol abstinence. In the US, this is monitored by daily breathalyser tests paid for by the offenders. If they do not turn up or if they test positive, they are subject to flash incarceration for a day or two. Convinced that this model could help reduce violence in the night-time economy and domestic violence, Malthouse campaigned to conduct the first trial of 24/7 sobriety in Europe.
The alcohol abstinence monitoring requirement, or AAMR, was introduced in the LASPO Act 2012. I am proud to have played my part in persuading the then Justice Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, to accept amendments which permit courts in England and Wales to impose a requirement for an offender to abstain from alcohol and be regularly tested to ensure compliance. Various AAMR pilots were conducted using sobriety bracelets, with a compliance rate of 94%.
In 2020, 10 years after Kit Malthouse began campaigning, an SI enabled a rollout of the AAMR, followed in 2022 by alcohol monitoring on licence. Here is how it works. The tag takes a sample of the wearer’s sweat every 30 minutes and provides a continuous record of whether the offender has been drinking. If the tag detects alcohol or is tampered with, an alert is sent to the Probation Service. If an offender breaks their alcohol ban, they can face a return to court or a prison sentence. Recent data shows a rapid rise in the use of alcohol monitoring post-release, but it is still very low. It would appear that prison governors are using it most. Does the Minister know why the Parole Board is not using this option at the same rate? Would the Minister agree that, if people are to be released early from prison, monitoring via tags might increase the number of candidates for early release?
I understand that a new agreement has been reached to supply more tags, but now that the effectiveness of the intervention has been proven, what is needed is more competition for better, cheaper devices. US data shows that keeping men sober in the community on these schemes helps reduce violence in the home. However, I believe this to be underresearched here. Will the Home Office agree to fund such research and explore how we can use this technology to keep even more women safe from abuse? It is a cheap option, enables safer early release, keeps men out of prison, and reduces much alcohol-fuelled abuse and probably death. Compulsory sobriety has the potential to be a game-changer. Will the Minister commit to looking into it further and giving it a very good push?