1-20 of 33 results for house:"House of Lords"
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.409 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.004 seconds
- Search query
- house:"House of Lords"
- We searched for
- legislature_ses:25277
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
Primary member
Answering member
More
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
To ask His Majesty's Government whether the Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs will consider the role that religion or culture played in enabling or facilitating abuse by grooming gangs, and not only the role that those factors played in responses to the abuse, as outlined in paragraph 4.3 of the...
To ask His Majesty's Government whether the Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs will consider the role that religion or culture played in enabling or facilitating abuse by grooming gangs, and not only the role that those factors played in responses to the abuse, as outlined in paragraph 4.3 of the...
On 9 December 2025, the Home Secretary published the draft Terms of Reference for the Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs and asked the Chair to consult on them.
Following the consultation, the Chair will make recommendations to the Home Secretary. Final Terms of Reference will be agreed and published by 31 March 2026. The Home Secretary has been clear (in her Oral Statement of 9 December) that the inquiry will consider, explicitly, the background of offenders – including their ethnicity, religion and culture – and whether the authorities failed to properly investigate what happened out of a misplaced desire to protect community cohesion. The inquiry will act without fear or favour, identifying individual, institutional and systemic failure, inadequate organisational responses, and failures of leadership.
The Home Secretary has also commissioned new research from UK Research and Innovation to address longstanding gaps in our understanding of perpetrators’ backgrounds and motivations, including factors such as ethnicity and religion.
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the decision of police forces to stop investigating non-crime hate incidents, whether they plan to abolish them altogether.
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the decision of police forces to stop investigating non-crime hate incidents, whether they plan to abolish them altogether.
The College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council are currently undertaking a review of non-crime hate incidents, working closely with the Home Office. The Government look forward to receiving the review’s final recommendations shortly and will decide future policy following consideration.
The College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council are currently undertaking a review of non-crime hate incidents, working closely with the Home Office. The Government look forward to receiving the review’s final recommendations shortly and will decide future policy following consideration.
The College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council are currently undertaking a review of non-crime hate incidents, working closely with the Home Office. The Government look forward to receiving the review’s final recommendations shortly and will decide future policy following consideration.
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the decision of police forces to stop investigating non-crime hate incidents, whether they plan to abolish them altogether.
As I have indicated to the noble Baroness, we are awaiting the report, and it is fair, if we have commissioned a report, that we wait to see its recommendations. However, an interim report in October of this year said that non-crime hate incidents were not fit for purpose. Her noble friend Lord Herbert, who is the chair of the College of Policing, has reported to this House on the recommendations to date, and we will have those shortly. I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness that non-crime hate incidents do not appear on basic or standard DBS checks, so she is not criminalised by her close proximity to a non-crime hate incident on her own accord.
As I have indicated to the noble Baroness, we are awaiting the report, and it is fair, if we have commissioned a report, that we wait to see its recommendations. However, an interim report in October of this year said that non-crime hate incidents were not fit for purpose. Her noble friend Lord Herbert, who is the chair of the College of Policing, has reported to this House on the recommendations to date, and we will have those shortly. I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness that non-crime hate incidents do not appear on basic or standard DBS checks, so she is not criminalised by her close proximity to a non-crime hate incident on her own accord.
I thank the Minister for that Answer. He may not be aware that in 2023 I was charged with a non-crime hate incident. Thanks to my noble friend Lord Young of Acton, who is in his place, and the Free Speech Union, we managed to fight it and get it dropped, but, by some estimates from Policy Exchange and others, some 60,000 hours of police time are used every year in investigating these, and innocent men and women are criminalised. My main concern is that, from Questions that I have tabled, neither the Home Office nor police forces can tell us whether any of this has led to any serious crimes being solved or prevented. Is it not time for the Minister to abolish these altogether?
The noble Baroness is right that one of the purposes of non-crime hate incident assessments is to assess whether there are potential problems or challenges in a particular area. Last year, for example, 44% of religious hate crime offences targeted Muslims, while 24% targeted Jewish people, and there were 82,490 race hate crime offences. That is useful information, but the questions are: what do we do about non-crime hate incidents generally? Should we record them? Do we follow them up? Do they lead to prosecution? Are they a good use of police time? However, the evidence gathered by some of that information is valuable, which is why the College of Policing and the police chiefs’ council are making a genuine assessment, having already said that the non-crime hate incident regime is not fit for purpose.
The noble Baroness is right that one of the purposes of non-crime hate incident assessments is to assess whether there are potential problems or challenges in a particular area. Last year, for example, 44% of religious hate crime offences targeted Muslims, while 24% targeted Jewish people, and there were 82,490 race hate crime offences. That is useful information, but the questions are: what do we do about non-crime hate incidents generally? Should we record them? Do we follow them up? Do they lead to prosecution? Are they a good use of police time? However, the evidence gathered by some of that information is valuable, which is why the College of Policing and the police chiefs’ council are making a genuine assessment, having already said that the non-crime hate incident regime is not fit for purpose.
My Lords, non-crime hate incidents, even if they are not investigated but recorded, are a good way of assessing the rising levels of hatred in society. For example, increasing levels of anti-social behaviour appear to be linked to hate crime. Can the Minister tell us whether mechanisms are in place to show what levels of anti-social behaviour are linked to hate crime, and what levels of anti-social behaviour are linked to anti-Muslim hate? I am happy to have that information in writing if he does not have it to hand.
Again, there are robust mechanisms in place to deal with harassment, racial prejudice and other forms of harassing and abusive and threatening behaviour. The key element of a non-crime hate incident is that it does not reach a threshold of a crime incident but is, in essence, a method of collecting information. For example, in my noble friend’s case, if there were persistent and regular non-crime hate approaches that did not reach that threshold, it might well indicate to the police that there were other aspects of community cohesion behaviour they needed to investigate. The review will decide what happens in terms of police activity following up on a range of matters, and that is what we are awaiting shortly with some interest.
Again, there are robust mechanisms in place to deal with harassment, racial prejudice and other forms of harassing and abusive and threatening behaviour. The key element of a non-crime hate incident is that it does not reach a threshold of a crime incident but is, in essence, a method of collecting information. For example, in my noble friend’s case, if there were persistent and regular non-crime hate approaches that did not reach that threshold, it might well indicate to the police that there were other aspects of community cohesion behaviour they needed to investigate. The review will decide what happens in terms of police activity following up on a range of matters, and that is what we are awaiting shortly with some interest.
My Lords, it will be a sad day when police stop investigating non-crime hate incidents. In the last 10 years, I stood for Parliament twice, and I was the victim of such incidents both times. Non-crime hate is an early warning sign of what is happening in our society so that police and the politicians can keep an eye on it. Does my noble friend the Minister agree?
I am grateful for that question from the noble Baroness. The issue is that non-crime hate incidents are not currently fit for purpose. That includes a range of mechanisms relating to how the police interpret that, what they do with the information and indeed whether any information is collected incorrectly. I would love to give an answer today, but it is important that we listen and work with the police on the review they have commissioned. That will be with me shortly and, when it is, we will be able to come to some definitive conclusions and put a regime in place that meets the noble Baroness’s objective of assessing anti-social behaviour and racial concerns, as my noble friend has mentioned, but does so in a way that does
not lead to mistakes, does not lead to false use by the police and is not a waste of police time in collecting that information.
I am grateful for that question from the noble Baroness. The issue is that non-crime hate incidents are not currently fit for purpose. That includes a range of mechanisms relating to how the police interpret that, what they do with the information and indeed whether any information is collected incorrectly. I would love to give an answer today, but it is important that we listen and work with the police on the review they have commissioned. That will be with me shortly and, when it is, we will be able to come to some definitive conclusions and put a regime in place that meets the noble Baroness’s objective of assessing anti-social behaviour and racial concerns, as my noble friend has mentioned, but does so in a way that does
not lead to mistakes, does not lead to false use by the police and is not a waste of police time in collecting that information.
My Lords, inspections by HMIC have found that about one-quarter of non-crime hate incidents are recorded incorrectly, with many people wrongly included. Following several reviews and repeated government assurances, can the Minister give an undertaking that the Government will finally establish a clear and publicly accessible appeals mechanism for individuals who believe they have been wrongly recorded as being involved in such incidents?
The noble Lord has a point. Guidance for these incidents was put in place by his Government in 2023, and it is that guidance that has proved ineffective and led to the review. We are looking at the framework for this. We have commissioned the College of Policing to look at it, as well as the police, who have to deal with this matter and who themselves have said that the regime is not fit for purpose. We hope then to be able to update the guidance, depending on what the police and the College of Policing come forward with.
I challenge the noble Lord’s contention that crime is rising. In many areas, crime is falling; murder rates in London are at their lowest levels for many months. Crime is falling generally, and the work that we are doing to put extra police on the ground will help improve community support and community action on crime. However, we will wait for the review and report back to the House in due course.
The noble Lord has a point. Guidance for these incidents was put in place by his Government in 2023, and it is that guidance that has proved ineffective and led to the review. We are looking at the framework for this. We have commissioned the College of Policing to look at it, as well as the police, who have to deal with this matter and who themselves have said that the regime is not fit for purpose. We hope then to be able to update the guidance, depending on what the police and the College of Policing come forward with.
I challenge the noble Lord’s contention that crime is rising. In many areas, crime is falling; murder rates in London are at their lowest levels for many months. Crime is falling generally, and the work that we are doing to put extra police on the ground will help improve community support and community action on crime. However, we will wait for the review and report back to the House in due course.
My Lords, I hear what the Minister says, but, to pick up on the points made by my noble friend Lady Maclean of Redditch, non-crime hate incidents are just one of the instruments used by the police to investigate online speech. Open-ended and subjective language in legislation such as the Public Order Act 1998 and the Communications Act 2003, and unclear guidance, are also used to chill free speech. Given the public’s view that crime is on the rise, do the Government not agree that legislative changes need to be made, and that guidance and leadership need to be crystal-clear that the police should stop policing online speech and start solving real-world crimes that have a genuine effect on people’s lives?
The Metropolitan Police has said that it will still record information collected from non-crime hate incidents, which is in line with the code of practice introduced by the previous Government in 2023. Ministers decide on issues, but we have commissioned a review of the 2023 guidance which is being undertaken by former colleagues of the noble Lord at a senior level in the police: the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing. It is important that we receive their review and then we can determine whether we agree with the
recommendations. Ministers decide, but we have commissioned a review, and it is important that we allow it to report.
The Metropolitan Police has said that it will still record information collected from non-crime hate incidents, which is in line with the code of practice introduced by the previous Government in 2023. Ministers decide on issues, but we have commissioned a review of the 2023 guidance which is being undertaken by former colleagues of the noble Lord at a senior level in the police: the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing. It is important that we receive their review and then we can determine whether we agree with the
recommendations. Ministers decide, but we have commissioned a review, and it is important that we allow it to report.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Young, and I, have tabled an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill to try to remove non-crime hate incidents. I understand why the Minister has to give the reply that he gives—because a review is ongoing and the Government do not want to get trapped by it—but the danger is that we end up with an inconsistent approach, even if it is improved. At the moment, we have a situation where the Metropolitan Police is no longer investigating non-crime hate incidents, yet 42 forces are. Is there not a risk that following the review we will end up with more inconsistency, not less, when people are crying out for this to be resolved?
It is an important use of non-crime hate incidents. As I said earlier, there have been 82,490 race hate crimes, 7,164 religious hate crimes and a range of other offences falling within that. One reason why it is helpful is that it guides where other government resources can go, such as the £70.9 million available to protect faith communities, including, regarding the issue that my noble friend mentioned, the £18 million to the Jewish community protective security grant. It has an important function, but we have to assess it in the light of the use of police time, which is what this review is about. However, my noble friend’s point was very well made, as was that of the noble Baroness, that it helps secure an intelligence picture.
It is an important use of non-crime hate incidents. As I said earlier, there have been 82,490 race hate crimes, 7,164 religious hate crimes and a range of other offences falling within that. One reason why it is helpful is that it guides where other government resources can go, such as the £70.9 million available to protect faith communities, including, regarding the issue that my noble friend mentioned, the £18 million to the Jewish community protective security grant. It has an important function, but we have to assess it in the light of the use of police time, which is what this review is about. However, my noble friend’s point was very well made, as was that of the noble Baroness, that it helps secure an intelligence picture.
My Lords, over the past two years, we have seen levels of antisemitism reach new highs, and while some antisemitic hate speech reaches the criminal threshold, it can also be sub-criminal. Does the Minister agree with me and organisations such as the Antisemitism Policy Trust that documenting such incidents is central to building an intelligence picture of hate hotspots and that a simple renaming of these incidents to “intelligence reports” would help a great deal?
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Hanson of Flint on 24 September (HL10412), whether they will place in the Library of the House (1) the stakeholders they have met to improve policy guidance on asylum claims based on religious conversions, and (2) the minutes of...
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Hanson of Flint on 24 September (HL10412), whether they will place in the Library of the House (1) the stakeholders they have met to improve policy guidance on asylum claims based on religious conversions, and (2) the minutes of...
We engage with stakeholders, including faith leaders, to ensure asylum claims based on religious persecution, including those based on religious conversion, are well considered, that those in genuine need are supported, and that there are no loopholes to claiming asylum in this country. Our guidance for considering claims based on religious conversion is publicly available on GOV.UK and we do not consider it is appropriate to place detailed discussions with stakeholders in the Library of the House.
Detailed Home Office policy instructions are regularly reviewed and provide a framework for considering asylum claims. All caseworkers receive extensive training to consider claims objectively and impartially and receive mentoring support before interviewing claimants and making such decisions. Our processes are underpinned by a robust framework of safeguards and quality checks, ensuring that claims are properly considered, decisions are sound, fake claims are rooted out, and protection is granted to those who genuinely need it.
Every asylum claim admitted to the UK asylum system, including those based on religion or belief, and including those from claimants who were accommodated on the Bibby Stockholm, is determined on its individual merits in accordance with our international obligations. People may become refugees ‘sur place’ due to activities they engage in or beliefs they have come to hold since leaving their country. As with all asylum claims, claims involving sur place activity are carefully considered on a case-by-case basis. In some circumstances it is appropriate to revoke protection status where evidence emerges that status was obtained by deception; where protection is no longer needed; or where someone commits a serious crime, represents a threat to our national security or demonstrates extremist behaviour.
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they have taken to amend the assessment of religious conversion as a basis for an asylum claim since March 2024.
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they have taken to amend the assessment of religious conversion as a basis for an asylum claim since March 2024.
We engage with stakeholders, including faith leaders, to ensure asylum claims based on religious persecution, including those based on religious conversion, are well considered, that those in genuine need are supported, and that there are no loopholes to claiming asylum in this country. Our guidance for considering claims based on religious conversion is publicly available on GOV.UK and we do not consider it is appropriate to place detailed discussions with stakeholders in the Library of the House.
Detailed Home Office policy instructions are regularly reviewed and provide a framework for considering asylum claims. All caseworkers receive extensive training to consider claims objectively and impartially and receive mentoring support before interviewing claimants and making such decisions. Our processes are underpinned by a robust framework of safeguards and quality checks, ensuring that claims are properly considered, decisions are sound, fake claims are rooted out, and protection is granted to those who genuinely need it.
Every asylum claim admitted to the UK asylum system, including those based on religion or belief, and including those from claimants who were accommodated on the Bibby Stockholm, is determined on its individual merits in accordance with our international obligations. People may become refugees ‘sur place’ due to activities they engage in or beliefs they have come to hold since leaving their country. As with all asylum claims, claims involving sur place activity are carefully considered on a case-by-case basis. In some circumstances it is appropriate to revoke protection status where evidence emerges that status was obtained by deception; where protection is no longer needed; or where someone commits a serious crime, represents a threat to our national security or demonstrates extremist behaviour.
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they plan to issue guidance to faith communities regarding mandatory reporting duties to be imposed by the Crime and Policing Bill.
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they plan to issue guidance to faith communities regarding mandatory reporting duties to be imposed by the Crime and Policing Bill.
The Government will set out clear guidance on the operation of the mandatory reporting duty. We will continue to engage with groups that may be impacted, including in faith settings, to ensure the requirements of the new duty are clearly communicated ahead of implementation.
The Government do not publish statistics on asylum claims based on religious conversion. All claims, including those based on religious conversion, are carefully assessed individually in accordance with our international obligations and in line with our published guidance. Claims based on religious conversion do not guarantee a grant of refugee status.
The Government do not publish statistics on asylum claims based on religious conversion. All claims, including those based on religious conversion, are carefully assessed individually in accordance with our international obligations and in line with our published guidance. Claims based on religious conversion do not guarantee a grant of refugee status.
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the number of asylum claims based on religious conversion.
As the noble Baroness will know, more than 111,000 people claimed asylum in the UK in the year ending June 2025. Almost half of the initial decisions—48%—were grants, which means that 52% were not. We do not keep statistics on individual religious conversion aspects. We take that into account and will make a judgment on the case before the examiner in each individual case.
As the noble Baroness will know, more than 111,000 people claimed asylum in the UK in the year ending June 2025. Almost half of the initial decisions—48%—were grants, which means that 52% were not. We do not keep statistics on individual religious conversion aspects. We take that into account and will make a judgment on the case before the examiner in each individual case.
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but I am sure that many other noble Lords will be surprised to hear that the Home Office does not publish such statistics. Given the salience of asylum claims and the number of illegal migrants coming to our shores, it would very much help the community and the country if we could see the number of conversions, for Christianity and any other religion, that are grounds for someone being granted asylum. Will the Minister please look again at his department and publish that data for us to scrutinise?
On behalf of the Government Benches, I echo the noble Lord’s comments about his noble friend. He was a good servant to his party, to his constituency and to the country. The recommendations made by that working group have been put into government consideration. I am not involved in that working group and there may not be a working group in existence now. I will check whether other ministerial colleagues are involved and let the noble Lord know in due course.
On behalf of the Government Benches, I echo the noble Lord’s comments about his noble friend. He was a good servant to his party, to his constituency and to the country. The recommendations made by that working group have been put into government consideration. I am not involved in that working group and there may not be a working group in existence now. I will check whether other ministerial colleagues are involved and let the noble Lord know in due course.
My Lords, at the outset, can I say how much these Liberal Democrat Benches will miss our dearly respected and valued colleague, Lord Ming Campbell of Pittenweem? He served the country well. My question to the Minister is this: last year, the previous Government established a faith working group to look at the issues at the basis of this Question. Does that working group still exist and, if so, can the Minister tell me what it has achieved?
There is full training, not just for those in existing positions. We are now including an extra 1,000 or so individuals to support speeding up the asylum claim decisions, and they are receiving full training. As the noble Baroness will know, there is published guidance around which the criteria for assessment are made, and that guidance is subject to tests from individuals and others.
There is full training, not just for those in existing positions. We are now including an extra 1,000 or so individuals to support speeding up the asylum claim decisions, and they are receiving full training. As the noble Baroness will know, there is published guidance around which the criteria for assessment are made, and that guidance is subject to tests from individuals and others.
My Lords, can the Minister outline what kind of training the officials have? A number of years ago, a cross-party group of parliamentarians was involved in helping the Home Office officials with changing the training from a general type of test of your knowledge of a religious text, which you may not even have seen, to that which required an analysis of the lived experience. Is that training still happening now with Home Office officials?
I am grateful to my noble friend. He gives me the opportunity to repeat the fact that the Government have recruited an extra 1,000 individuals to work on speeding up asylum claims, because the key issue is making sure that we determine very speedily whether individuals have a right to stay in the United Kingdom. If they do, they can; if they do not, they should be removed after subsequent appeals have been unsuccessful.
I am grateful to my noble friend. He gives me the opportunity to repeat the fact that the Government have recruited an extra 1,000 individuals to work on speeding up asylum claims, because the key issue is making sure that we determine very speedily whether individuals have a right to stay in the United Kingdom. If they do, they can; if they do not, they should be removed after subsequent appeals have been unsuccessful.
My Lords, while we are on the issue of asylum claims, can the Minister update us on the Government’s latest steps in relation to dealing with asylum claims more quickly and more effectively than has previously been the case?
The Home Office continues to have discussions with Church leaders on a range of matters, including asylum. I say to the noble Lord—I hope this is helpful—that if he is asking, “Does the Home Office accept every conversion claim?”, we do not. All claims are assessed on an individual basis. Someone simply saying that they are converting to Christianity does not mean that they will have their asylum claim accepted. That asylum claim will be tested against both their performance and whether they attend church, along with advice given by Church leaders and others, but it does not guarantee an acceptance of an asylum claim.
The Home Office continues to have discussions with Church leaders on a range of matters, including asylum. I say to the noble Lord—I hope this is helpful—that if he is asking, “Does the Home Office accept every conversion claim?”, we do not. All claims are assessed on an individual basis. Someone simply saying that they are converting to Christianity does not mean that they will have their asylum claim accepted. That asylum claim will be tested against both their performance and whether they attend church, along with advice given by Church leaders and others, but it does not guarantee an acceptance of an asylum claim.
My Lords, the Minister may be aware that in March last year, the Home Affairs Select Committee heard oral evidence from a former Anglican reverend that his church had been used as a conveyor belt for an industry of asylum baptism. He raised concerns that asylum seekers were deliberately converting to Christianity in order to claim that they would be persecuted if they were sent back to their home country. Given the unease within the Church of England about those comments, what discussions has the Home Office had with the Church of England regarding such conversions for asylum purposes?
As it happens, my right honourable friend Dame Diana Johnson chaired the Home Affairs Select Committee then. She then became a Home Office Minister and is fully aware of the ongoing discussions. We will continue to discuss with any Church leader the basis for individuals claiming conversion as part of the process of asylum, but I reiterate to the House that claiming conversion or Christianity does not mean that the individual is accepted. That is subject to a rigorous test by officials in the Home Office.
As it happens, my right honourable friend Dame Diana Johnson chaired the Home Affairs Select Committee then. She then became a Home Office Minister and is fully aware of the ongoing discussions. We will continue to discuss with any Church leader the basis for individuals claiming conversion as part of the process of asylum, but I reiterate to the House that claiming conversion or Christianity does not mean that the individual is accepted. That is subject to a rigorous test by officials in the Home Office.
My Lords, I declare an interest as patron of the ASSIST charity in Sheffield, which seeks to support refugees and asylum seekers. Is the Minister aware that the evidence provided by the former Anglican cleric just referenced was refuted by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford in extensive oral evidence on the subject at a Home Affairs Select Committee meeting in the other place last year?