1-20 of 362 results for askedby:"Baroness Ludford"
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.296 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.003 seconds
- Search query
- askedby:"Baroness Ludford"
- We searched for
- tablingMember_ses:301993 OR askingMember_ses:301993
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
More
Primary member
Answering member
More
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
My Lords, as the Minister has just confirmed, he said in the exchange with us on July 6:
“Noble Lords who know me will know that I do not lack ambition
”.—[Official Report, 6/7/26; col. 11.]
He has again shown that is true. However, the pace of release of IPP prisoners is still too slow. Prospective new Prime Minister Andy Burnham spoke on Tuesday in the other place of the need to
“change the way this country thinks about and works towards justice
”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/7/26; col. 891.]
After this clarion call, does the Minister expect the new Government to match his ambition with greater resources, resolve and courage, so that by 2029 at the very latest the legacy of the shameful injustice of IPP sentences will be no more?
My Lords, as the Minister has just confirmed, he said in the exchange with us on July 6:
“Noble Lords who know me will know that I do not lack ambition
”.—[Official Report, 6/7/26; col. 11.]
He has again shown that is true. However, the pace of release of IPP prisoners is still too slow. Prospective new Prime Minister Andy Burnham spoke on Tuesday in the other place of the need to
“change the way this country thinks about and works towards justice
”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/7/26; col. 891.]
After this clarion call, does the Minister expect the new Government to match his ambition with greater resources, resolve and courage, so that by 2029 at the very latest the legacy of the shameful injustice of IPP sentences will be no more?
The noble Baroness will not be surprised that everybody I meet in prisons and probation, and around the whole justice sector, is ambitious for IPP prisoners. We are committed to ensuring that they get the support they need to progress. I am still ambitious, so that is why we are supporting the hardest to reach, especially IPP prisoners, those who we know are really stuck in the system. We are trialling a new IPP advocate role and giving IPP prisoners more experiences so they can progress, with specialists working with them, and when they go to approved premises, they are staying there longer and have more support. All these initiatives will help, but we need to remain ambitious, because I know, as many of us do, that IPP prisoners can get through. Having employed many of them myself, I believe in second chances and that they can get through.
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to address the continued detention of individuals serving Imprisonment for Public Protection sentences beyond their original tariff periods.
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to address the continued detention of individuals serving Imprisonment for Public Protection sentences beyond their original tariff periods.
In the two years since being in government, we have made significant progress to support IPP prisoners. We have reduced the number of never-released IPP prisoners by 21% and the number of IPP offenders in the community by 70%. IPP recalls fell by 31% in 2025 compared to 2024, and we have also changed the law through the Sentencing Act. Around 100 IPP offenders became eligible for earlier licence termination when these changes were implemented on 1 June.
My Lords, can the Minister, whose personal commitment is not in doubt on this issue, tell us why the Government continue to reject a significant proportion of recommendations by the Parole Board for the transfer of IPP prisoners to open conditions? In answering that question, perhaps he will help me answer a mother who has written to me and whose son is an IPP prisoner. He was given a six-year sentence and has now served 18 years. She says: “He is 50 this year. I fear I will not see him liberated and free before I die”. She wants transfer to an open prison, because most of these prisoners are too traumatised and too mentally incapacitated to undertake the action plans.
My Lords, can the Minister, whose personal commitment is not in doubt on this issue, tell us why the Government continue to reject a significant proportion of recommendations by the Parole Board for the transfer of IPP prisoners to open conditions? In answering that question, perhaps he will help me answer a mother who has written to me and whose son is an IPP prisoner. He was given a six-year sentence and has now served 18 years. She says: “He is 50 this year. I fear I will not see him liberated and free before I die”. She wants transfer to an open prison, because most of these prisoners are too traumatised and too mentally incapacitated to undertake the action plans.
I am a big fan of open prisons. That is where the best recruitment is and that is where people reintegrate into society a lot more. I was in HMP Birmingham three weeks ago, where I met an IPP prisoner who had been to open conditions for the first time and then had asked to come back because he did not feel ready, so it is a good way of testing people on their journey. I would like to do more, but this comes back to the point that we want our prisons to be working well and then they have the time to really support people on that transition. However, we have to protect the public and we have to make sure that people are ready.
My Lords, Ministers are facing three Oral Questions about IPP prisoners within a fortnight, the third being mine. That is because we are determined, co-ordinated and—speaking for myself—an angry bunch. Why are the Government granting early release to a group of prisoners guilty of very serious crimes when, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said, 900 prisoners subjected to the scandalous and ethically outrageous injustice of indeterminate IPP sentences have never been released and are being held in prison three, four or five times longer than their court-mandated sentences for much lesser, non-violent and often minor crimes?
My Lords, Ministers are facing three Oral Questions about IPP prisoners within a fortnight, the third being mine. That is because we are determined, co-ordinated and—speaking for myself—an angry bunch. Why are the Government granting early release to a group of prisoners guilty of very serious crimes when, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said, 900 prisoners subjected to the scandalous and ethically outrageous injustice of indeterminate IPP sentences have never been released and are being held in prison three, four or five times longer than their court-mandated sentences for much lesser, non-violent and often minor crimes?
There is a persistent myth that people got IPP sentences for rather trivial offences, which is in fact not true. It was always required at the time that it was both a serious offence and that they had demonstrated concerns about previous offending. There is this cohort that needs to be looked at, and the Government are anxiously trying to ensure that we make every move we possibly can to make sure that they are helped to demonstrate that they are no longer a risk. However, no Government—and that includes the Government who were led by the party opposite—will release people when the independent Parole Board has adjudged that they remain a risk to the public.
My Lords, Russia is undoubtedly stirring tensions to undermine western security and Bosnia’s progress to EU membership. As has been said, the UK has always played a strong role in supporting the Dayton agreement and the Office of the High Representative, which my former leader Paddy Ashdown filled 20 years ago—I am glad he was referred to. How is the UK working not only with the United States and the rest of the international community but specifically with the EU and European partners on Bosnia, as on Ukraine, to support the Bosnian state’s institutions and constitutional order?
My Lords, Russia is undoubtedly stirring tensions to undermine western security and Bosnia’s progress to EU membership. As has been said, the UK has always played a strong role in supporting the Dayton agreement and the Office of the High Representative, which my former leader Paddy Ashdown filled 20 years ago—I am glad he was referred to. How is the UK working not only with the United States and the rest of the international community but specifically with the EU and European partners on Bosnia, as on Ukraine, to support the Bosnian state’s institutions and constitutional order?
We work very closely, as I am sure the noble Baroness would want, with the EU, the Council of Europe, the US and other partners to do just that. We are 30-plus years on from what happened and some people say that it is time to move on but, actually, it is clear that the conditions for that have not been met. There are new actors and risks of which we need to be mindful, and it is important that we stick to the agreement and, as the noble Lord opposite said, that the right person is forthcoming and that we pick them.
My Lords, is it really not possible for the Government to have a more targeted approach—similar to what my noble friend Lady Hamwee suggested—by increasing the workforce to assist asylum applications? Rather than the blunderbuss of removing the right of nationals from certain countries to apply for visas, can the Government not home in on the individual abuse of the system? The blanket approach risks being unfair.
My Lords, is it really not possible for the Government to have a more targeted approach—similar to what my noble friend Lady Hamwee suggested—by increasing the workforce to assist asylum applications? Rather than the blunderbuss of removing the right of nationals from certain countries to apply for visas, can the Government not home in on the individual abuse of the system? The blanket approach risks being unfair.
The brake on the four countries is a temporary brake while we assess the reasons for the rise in numbers that took place. The Government are trying to speed up the asylum processes along the lines that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned. We have put additional staff in to approve the processing, because we want to get to a stage where individuals know quickly whether they have a genuine asylum claim, whether they have been accepted—and, if they have been rejected, that they have the right to appeal—and whether we have to remove them. That is self-evidently part of the Government’s approach to this issue.
Does the Leader of the House welcome, as I do, what I think is a new spirit of intention, moving from proceedings to services that support Members, to engage with and respond to Members? I think that is led by the new Lord Speaker and the new Clerk of the Parliaments. I think it is very welcome that we are going to be listened to more about the services and how they are delivered in this House.
Does the Leader of the House welcome, as I do, what I think is a new spirit of intention, moving from proceedings to services that support Members, to engage with and respond to Members? I think that is led by the new Lord Speaker and the new Clerk of the Parliaments. I think it is very welcome that we are going to be listened to more about the services and how they are delivered in this House.
I did not quite catch that, but I think that the noble Baroness referred to services of the House. My impression is that the current Lord Speaker and the past Lord Speaker and the Administration of the House have been talking and engaging more with Members, and that should continue. I will certainly keep an eye on that, because Members have an interest in how those services are delivered and how to make best use of them.
I am privileged, and almost dumbstruck. I join others in paying tribute to the redoubtable team at the NGO For Women Scotland, who secured this Supreme Court judgment. A Government who proclaim their commitment to the rule of law ad nauseam have spent a year trying to evade it and now continue the gaslighting. The excuse of purdah is rather transparent. Why are the Government so contemptuous of voters, a majority of whom value single-sex facilities and services for women but are not permitted to see this code before 7 May?
I am privileged, and almost dumbstruck. I join others in paying tribute to the redoubtable team at the NGO For Women Scotland, who secured this Supreme Court judgment. A Government who proclaim their commitment to the rule of law ad nauseam have spent a year trying to evade it and now continue the gaslighting. The excuse of purdah is rather transparent. Why are the Government so contemptuous of voters, a majority of whom value single-sex facilities and services for women but are not permitted to see this code before 7 May?
I strongly dispute what the noble Baroness says—I do not suppose we will ever come to an agreement on it—but this is a very important issue. The Supreme Court judgment was absolutely clear; it brought clarity. If anyone is in any doubt about its implementation, they should seek legal advice. The impacts of the code of practice are very broad. I am not going to comment on the code. By the way, purdah is not something invented by the Government. Purdah is a well-established process, and we are not going to deviate from it. We are talking about elections that are only a matter of weeks away. This Parliament will have the opportunity, in accordance with the Equality Act, to review it properly.
My Lords, the Education Secretary—the Minister, supposedly, for Women—has run out of road, with her procrastination, excuses and flannelling the object of ridicule. Organisations are using the Government’s refusal to lay the guidance as a pretext to stick with the Stonewall law, which has been wrong for a decade. This means that women encounter situations which compromise their safety, privacy and dignity in changing rooms, toilets and leisure centres, because these are not guaranteed to be single-sex. Why are the Government continuing to fail women and defy the rule of law?
My Lords, the Education Secretary—the Minister, supposedly, for Women—has run out of road, with her procrastination, excuses and flannelling the object of ridicule. Organisations are using the Government’s refusal to lay the guidance as a pretext to stick with the Stonewall law, which has been wrong for a decade. This means that women encounter situations which compromise their safety, privacy and dignity in changing rooms, toilets and leisure centres, because these are not guaranteed to be single-sex. Why are the Government continuing to fail women and defy the rule of law?
My Lords, the Secretary of State for Education and the current Minister for Women has a proud and lifelong record of representing women. She also understands that in order to be able to do that, we need a code of practice that is both clear and legally defensible. I would have thought that anybody with women’s best interests at heart would agree with that.
Does the Minister agree that, before any labelling scheme could be considered, there would have to be an assurance that it would be comprehensive and not discriminatory against religious slaughter of shechita and halal? While a recent study in the American Journal of Veterinary Research confirmed that
“religious slaughter induces swift LOC”—
or loss of consciousness—
“reinforcing its potential to minimize animal suffering”,
we know that animal welfare standards in industrialised slaughterhouses, using gassing and electrocution, are often very poor and far from humane. Any labelling scheme must fully reflect all those aspects.
Does the Minister agree that, before any labelling scheme could be considered, there would have to be an assurance that it would be comprehensive and not discriminatory against religious slaughter of shechita and halal? While a recent study in the American Journal of Veterinary Research confirmed that
“religious slaughter induces swift LOC”—
or loss of consciousness—
“reinforcing its potential to minimize animal suffering”,
we know that animal welfare standards in industrialised slaughterhouses, using gassing and electrocution, are often very poor and far from humane. Any labelling scheme must fully reflect all those aspects.
Obviously, it is important that any labelling is completely accurate; it has to be transparent, and any discriminatory matters have to be carefully thought through, as the noble Baroness rightly said. She mentioned CO2 gas stunning, which is used in around 90% of pig slaughters and is incredibly cruel. It is one reason why we included it in the animal welfare strategy; it is a method of slaughter that we would also like to see phased out.
My Lords, what progress have the Government made in implementing the report of the Sullivan review, which recommended collection of data by sex?
My Lords, what progress have the Government made in implementing the report of the Sullivan review, which recommended collection of data by sex?
My Lords, the Sullivan review has been published and has been shared with all relevant government departments to ensure that it informs their thinking.
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they expect to lay before Parliament the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s code of practice for implementing the Supreme Court judgment on the meaning of “sex” in the Equality Act 2010.
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they expect to lay before Parliament the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s code of practice for implementing the Supreme Court judgment on the meaning of “sex” in the Equality Act 2010.
My Lords, the Government are considering the draft updated code and, if the decision is taken to approve it, the Minister will lay it before Parliament. Parliament will then have 40 sitting days to consider the code when it is laid. It is important that the correct process for laying the code is followed.
I thank the Minister for that Answer, but the Equality and Human Rights Commission has today had to write to the Minister for Women and Equalities, reminding her that it is six months since the Supreme Court judgment, which
confirmed that “sex” in the Equality Act means biological sex, and six weeks since the commission submitted its draft of the new code of practice for implementation of a judgment that the Home Secretary reportedly regards as “beyond reproach”.
Does the Minister think it is satisfactory that the pitfalls of delay in producing the statutory guidance include that service providers continue to rely on the existing 2011 code, which is now partly illegal and must be quickly revoked and replaced, and that many organisations continue to drag their feet, wrongly claiming that they need to wait for the code, and risk breaking the law in their treatment of women and same-sex attracted people?
I thank the Minister for that Answer, but the Equality and Human Rights Commission has today had to write to the Minister for Women and Equalities, reminding her that it is six months since the Supreme Court judgment, which
confirmed that “sex” in the Equality Act means biological sex, and six weeks since the commission submitted its draft of the new code of practice for implementation of a judgment that the Home Secretary reportedly regards as “beyond reproach”.
Does the Minister think it is satisfactory that the pitfalls of delay in producing the statutory guidance include that service providers continue to rely on the existing 2011 code, which is now partly illegal and must be quickly revoked and replaced, and that many organisations continue to drag their feet, wrongly claiming that they need to wait for the code, and risk breaking the law in their treatment of women and same-sex attracted people?
The code is absolutely important. That is why it needs to be dealt with properly and appropriately. The draft code, which is over 300 pages long, was submitted on 4 September and it is really important that the Government consider this across Whitehall. We also have a duty, as specified in the Equality Act, to consult the devolved Administrations, too. So the timescale the noble Baroness is talking about is not a delayed process. It is absolutely important that we ensure that the Supreme Court ruling is properly applied in the draft code of conduct, and we will ensure that it is done properly.
My Lords, the Minister keeps telling us that this is complex and difficult, but meanwhile he is not doing anything either. Does he understand not only the dimensions of the harm that is being caused, particularly to pedestrians, of riding on pavements, dumping on pavements and sailing through red lights, as well as the corrosive effect that this normalisation of anti-social and unlawful behaviour is having on public confidence in tackling lawlessness?
My Lords, the Minister keeps telling us that this is complex and difficult, but meanwhile he is not doing anything either. Does he understand not only the dimensions of the harm that is being caused, particularly to pedestrians, of riding on pavements, dumping on pavements and sailing through red lights, as well as the corrosive effect that this normalisation of anti-social and unlawful behaviour is having on public confidence in tackling lawlessness?
The one thing that I did not say was that the Government are doing nothing. The Government are considering very seriously what needs to be done to deal with this issue, and noble Lords will know—because I put it in the Library—that the range of legislation affecting particularly e-bikes and e-scooters across Europe and beyond gives us some difficult and serious choices about how to legislate and in which way. In the meantime, as my noble friend Lord Hanson of Flint said in response to the Question last week from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, the Government are taking serious action on dangerous and inconsiderate cycling as well as about confiscating bikes when they are used for crime. I have sympathy with what the noble Baroness says, and we are doing something about it.
My Lords, in 2022, Women in Sport found that more than four in 10 girls who took part in sport in primary school disengaged from sport as teenagers. It is believed that one factor is having male-bodied competitors against them. Some were deterred for reasons of safety and fairness, while others were deterred maybe for religious reasons. Once the Government have secured respect for the Supreme Court ruling in sport, as I hope they will, how will they encourage women and girls to participate in sport again?
My Lords, in 2022, Women in Sport found that more than four in 10 girls who took part in sport in primary school disengaged from sport as teenagers. It is believed that one factor is having male-bodied competitors against them. Some were deterred for reasons of safety and fairness, while others were deterred maybe for religious reasons. Once the Government have secured respect for the Supreme Court ruling in sport, as I hope they will, how will they encourage women and girls to participate in sport again?
It is really important that we do not tangle up different issues. We want everyone to be able to participate in sport in a way that ensures they feel safe. One of the ways we can do this is by ensuring that young women feel confident about their bodies—a lot of young women do not feel confident about their bodies when they are teenagers. I am keen that we do not tangle up different issues. I am happy to talk to the noble Baroness about this at greater length, should she wish.
My Lords, could the Minister tell us what action the Government are taking in other sectors to ensure the prompt implementation of the Supreme Court’s clear confirmation that sex in the Equality Act must mean biological sex, not gender identity? For instance, in policing, the National Police Chiefs’ Council says
“we will not rush our response”,
which means in practice, police officers will still be allowed, or required, to strip search members of the public of the opposite sex to themselves. This does not require lots of practicality about implementation; this can change from one day to the next.
My Lords, could the Minister tell us what action the Government are taking in other sectors to ensure the prompt implementation of the Supreme Court’s clear confirmation that sex in the Equality Act must mean biological sex, not gender identity? For instance, in policing, the National Police Chiefs’ Council says
“we will not rush our response”,
which means in practice, police officers will still be allowed, or required, to strip search members of the public of the opposite sex to themselves. This does not require lots of practicality about implementation; this can change from one day to the next.
I am sure the noble Baroness is right that a whole range of different organisations are currently considering their practice. The Supreme Court ruling brings clarity about the definition of sex, and it is on that basis that a whole range of organisations, including the police, should be considering what changes are necessary.
My Lords, the EHRC has come under the most extraordinary and ill-informed abuse, as has its chair, personally. What more do the Government believe they can do to ensure that the independence and functions of the EHRC are properly understood?
My Lords, the EHRC has come under the most extraordinary and ill-informed abuse, as has its chair, personally. What more do the Government believe they can do to ensure that the independence and functions of the EHRC are properly understood?
I hope that I have demonstrated today that the Government does properly understand them. As I said last week, it is important that this whole debate is carried out in a spirit of understanding the complexities of the application of some of these provisions and recognition that all groups need to be able to access services, but with welcome clarity on the areas covered by the Supreme Court judgment.
My Lords, there is an arrest warrant issued in Bosnia-Herzegovina against Mr Dodik. Can the Minister update us on where that is at and what international co-operation there is on getting him arrested?
My Lords, there is an arrest warrant issued in Bosnia-Herzegovina against Mr Dodik. Can the Minister update us on where that is at and what international co-operation there is on getting him arrested?
We have been very clear. Dodik has been spreading rumours that UK forces are somehow engaged in his arrest. These are baseless claims and part of a campaign of distortion and disinformation by Dodik that is clearly designed to distort and distract from his destructive actions. The charges against him are a matter for the authority of the High Representative.
My Lords, the Minister talked about lane rental being rolled out. It has been being rolled out for the last 20 years, has it not? When will it actually going to operate?
My Lords, the Minister talked about lane rental being rolled out. It has been being rolled out for the last 20 years, has it not? When will it actually going to operate?
I will be very happy to write to the noble Baroness and tell her exactly what the position with lane rental is. It is complex and needs administration, but the intention is to force particular utilities to do their work in an effective and timely way.
To ask His Majesty’s Government what advice they are giving to universities following the fine imposed by the Office for Students on Sussex University for breach of free speech obligations.
To ask His Majesty’s Government what advice they are giving to universities following the fine imposed by the Office for Students on Sussex University for breach of free speech obligations.
My Lords, the regulatory case report to which the noble Baroness referred underlines the importance of good governance and academic freedom in higher education. The Office for Students will shortly be writing to relevant providers on this important issue and offering support and advice. It will be publishing updated guidance for the higher education sector to support it to understand how to comply with its duties in relation to freedom of speech and academic freedom.