Lord Davies of Gower:

Moved by Lord Davies of Gower

371B: In subsection (1), leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert “Condition 1 has been met and that one of either—(a) Condition 2, or(b) Condition 3,has been met.(1A) Condition 1 is that the group has as its purpose and practice the deliberate commission of one or more of the following offences—(a) an offence under section 1 of the Public Order Act 1986 (riot),(b) an offence under section 2 of the Public Order Act 1986 (violent disorder), (b) an offence under section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 (destroying or damaging property), or(d) an offence under section 7 of the Public Order Act 2023 (interference with the use or operation of key national infrastructure).(1B) Condition 2 is that the offences mentioned in Condition 1 are carried out with the intention of influencing public policy, parliamentary debate, ministerial decision-making or the exercise of democratic functions.(1C) Condition 3 is that the activities of the group create a risk of serious harm to public safety, democratic institutions, or the rights of others.”

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Walney, for bringing forward Amendment 371A and all noble Lords who have added their name to it. I thank the Members of your Lordships’ House who, I hope, will be speaking to it. This amendment is eminently sensible. We have heard several examples already of groups which engage in criminal and intimidating behaviour to further their ideological ends, but which do not necessarily pass the terrorism threshold. There is no justification for their continued lawful existence, but to proscribe them as terrorists obfuscates the meaning of the category and incorporates inactive supporters within the definition. The pertinent example of this is Palestine Action. I will not speculate on whether the behaviour actually amounts to terrorism, but the actions of its supporters following its proscription highlight the necessity for action.

An organisation that damages defence infrastructure and attacks members of the public should cease to exist, but for the police to then have to spend precious time arresting hundreds of protesters with placards is clearly not ideal. It may seem morally dubious on behalf of those protesters, but I think we can all agree that they are a far cry from the archetypal terrorist supporters of, say, ISIS or the Taliban. Most importantly, it is a waste of police time to have to deal with sanctimonious protesters who otherwise peacefully support a general ideological cause. That is why we entirely support the noble Lord’s amendment. Our Amendment 371B introduces a minor change to the drafting that reflects our belief that the proscription of groups in this category should not be contingent on whether they fulfil the criteria of both subsections (1A) and (1B). Individually, the actions in both subsections should merit a protest group being proscribed and prohibited from taking further action.

If a listed crime is committed that creates a serious risk to the safety of the public, then the line is crossed from dissent to danger. I think noble Lords can agree that whether a group is for an ideological end or not, this should merit proscription. The very act of a group entering an arms factory with sledgehammers should preclude its existence, regardless of motive. That said, ideological motive is also a factor that should be considered in its own right: if a group shuns peaceful protest and becomes willing to commit criminal offences to further a political end, that should be grounds to ban it. Take, for example, BASH BACK, the activist group which has consistently engaged in criminal damage, vandalism and intimidation in the name of so-called transgender rights. To take one example—as I am sure my noble friend Lady Cash will highlight—it recently spray-painted the office building of the Equality and Human Rights Commission for simply declaring that biological sex is biological sex.

This vandalism is an offence under Section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 and should result in a group being proscribed. I am, however, wary that spray painting and other forms of vandalism may not be seen to create a risk of serious harm to public safety, and I am not confident that, with the right lawyers, the actions of these groups would result in them being proscribed, because of a technicality. Criminality alone introduces the possibility of restricting the practice of a protest group. Whether this is augmented by either a risk to public safety or by an intention to influence political decision-making should confirm that decision.

That being said, I reaffirm my support for the noble Lord’s original amendment. It is a pertinent time for this debate, and I believe that Amendment 371A finds the right balance between prohibiting criminal activity and permitting peaceful support. I hope all Members of your Lordships’ House can recognise the rationale for moving away from a rigid binary between terrorism and protest and acknowledge that it is a spectrum that will benefit from more nuance. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition will support this amendment, and I look forward to hearing the closing remarks of the Minister and of the noble Lord, Lord Walney.

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 371A from the noble Lord, Lord Walney. As the noble Lord mentioned, the House will be very familiar with the problems that have arisen from the use of the power that the Secretary of State has to proscribe a terrorist group. The virtue of Amendment 371A is that it avoids any such description. It focuses on the severe mischief that we know certain groups are causing in our society.

Who could object to the Secretary of State having a power, by regulation, to designate a group as an extreme criminal protest group if there is a reasonable belief that its purpose and practice is the deliberate commission of the serious offences set out in this amendment: riot, violent disorder, destroying or damaging property, and interference with the use or operation of key national infrastructure? Surely the Secretary of State should have power to take action, particularly when, as the amendment requires, those offences are carried out with the intention of influencing public policy, parliamentary debate, ministerial decision-making or the exercise of democratic functions, and they create a risk of serious harm to public safety, democratic institutions or the rights of others.

We all support the right to protest, but there are limits, and these clearly are breached by deliberate conduct the purpose of which is to act in the way set out in the tightly drawn amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Walney. As he has pointed out, he has avoided in his drafting the real problem that has arisen in the Palestine Action case: that people are criminalised by reason of support for that body. That has caused problems. The Court of Appeal case is pending, but this amendment avoids those difficulties.

So I support this. I hope the Minister will not tell the House that this is not the time and that we should wait in particular for the report of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven. I too have the highest regard for him, but we should bear in mind that, with this Bill, the Government have not waited for his report in a number of provisions relating to public order, particularly and rightly on cumulative disruption. So I say to the House: let us deal with this. This is a legislative opportunity; it is a pressing problem, and we should deal with it now.

My Lords, for the reasons given by the noble Lords, Lord Walney and Lord Pannick, I strongly support this Amendment.

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 419. It is rare for an amendment to succeed before it has even been moved, but so it appears to be in the case of this amendment, which would compel the Government to publish a counterextremism strategy. In Committee, I tabled a similar amendment, to which the Minister gave what was, in essence, a holding reply. I then obtained a Question for Short Debate on the same subject, to which the Minister again gave a holding reply. But it is third time lucky, for today, on the very day of this debate, the Government have published a counterextremism strategy—or rather a cohesion strategy of which counterextremism is a part—which I believe is being announced in the other place as I speak. So the timing appears to show, if nothing else, the power of your Lordships’ House. In saying so, I make no complaint: for the Government to publish a strategy at all is at least a start. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lords, Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Walney, who co-signed this amendment, as well as the Liberal Democrat front bench, our own Front Bench and other noble Lords who spoke in Committee.

The strategy will be carefully studied during the weeks ahead, and it is worth reiterating at the start the point that only part of it concerns counterextremism. It appears to contain, as one might expect, the good, the not quite so good and the indifferent. The good, for example, includes further action to bar preachers from abroad who incite violence in mosques. The not so good includes, to give the same kind of example, no specific action that I can see against preachers in this country who incite violence in mosques—I draw the attention of those who doubt this happens to the evidence regularly published on X by the activist, habibi.

As for the indifferent, there is the proposed special representative for anti-Muslim hostility. Some wanted a fully-fledged definition of “Islamophobia” claiming a basis in racism. Others wanted no definition at all. What we have is a halfway house, and I suspect it will satisfy no one. On the one hand, initiatives with faith communities, such as Inter Faith Week, are welcome—assuming that the Government and others know whom they are engaging with, funding or giving platforms to—and, on the other, plans to crack down on hate crimes, in the strategy’s own words, are problematic. The distinction between inciting violence and defending free speech is difficult to draw, but it is vital.

But on balance I want to, in the words of the old song, accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative. It is welcome that the strategy confirms the last Government’s definition of “extremism”, which, though not perfect, identifies its core characteristic: ideologies that aim to

“undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights”.

It is also welcome that the strategy recognises clearly and unequivocally that, although Islamist extremism is very far from being the only challenge of this kind, it is the predominant form, responsible for three-quarters of the workload of Contest and 94% of all terror-related deaths in the past 25 years. The challenges we must confront are terrorism at worst and balkanisation at best, with our United Kingdom divided up in living practice, if not constitutional fact, into ethnic and religious enclaves. The precedent of Northern Ireland during the Troubles is not encouraging, and I am sure that none of us want to see that.

So, if the strategy is to work, much will hinge on a single word: implementation. Can the Government see the best of it through? If the strategy is to be coherent—applied to out-of-school settings, schools, universities, the NHS, prisons, police, charities, civil society and government itself—three essentials are required. The first is clarity, authority, and strength at the centre. The way our governmental system works, for better or worse, is that, until or unless No. 10 wants something to happen, it will not happen, and even then it may not. The strategy proposes a new interministerial working group and regular reporting to the Prime Minister. This is an admirable aim, but I fear it will not cut the mustard. What is required, rather, is a Cabinet Minister—the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster or perhaps the Deputy prime minister—who is charged with responsibility for delivering the strategy and who speaks and acts with the Prime Minister’s authority. I regret, in passing, the apparent non-replacement of Robin Simcox as the Commissioner for Countering Extremism.

Secondly, the strategy needs to work not only at the centre of government but throughout the country, in civil society and local communities. The closer the state is to local communities, the easier it is, in pursuit of a quiet life, to engage with, fund and work with extremists. If noble Lords want an example, they need look no further than the horrifying recent developments in Birmingham, where the West Midlands Police bowed to an extremist mob over a football game, conjured up evidence that does not exist to justify its decision and then, in the words of Nick Timothy, “lied and lied again” about its actions, including to Parliament. Three of the eight mosques that the West Midlands Police consulted over its decision had hosted preachers who promoted conspiracy theories or called for the death of Jews. I am a localist by temperament, but I suspect that Westminster and Whitehall will need strong powers of Intervention.

Finally, national government, the public sector and local government will require a level of political and religious literacy that does not necessarily come easily, and it is again welcome that the strategy recognises this fact. If, for example, members of a crowd begin to chant during a demonstration, “Khaybar, Khaybar, ya yahud. Jaish Muhammad soufa ya’oud”, local police need to understand what the chant means and the threat it makes. Most of us do not speak Arabic, are not Muslims, do not study political thought, may have no sympathy with religion in any event, and may simply and mistakenly identify Islam the ancient faith with Islamism the modern ideology.

The Islamists and the far right have a common interest in presenting Islamism falsely as the historical and living mainstream worldwide. The far right do it to target Muslims; the Islamists do it to recruit their children. Religious solutions to that last challenge lie in the hands of the traditional classical Islam, not the state. But government must at least know whom it is dealing with, act accordingly, protect members of all faiths and none, and actively work for the one-nation ideal. The strategy offers at least a glimpse of it, so I will not, when the time comes, seek to test the opinion of the House on my amendment. I welcome the strategy’s publication, but now the real work begins.

My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 371A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Walney, and I will say a word about it, because it is a bit of an unusual event for me to do that. But I will take also this opportunity to say something about the amendment to that amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower.

I have, in essence, two reasons for supporting the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Walney. Obviously, he did it from a position of great knowledge and experience in these areas, and I therefore take what he says and proposes very seriously. The first reason is that he is suggesting that particular conduct should be illegal—and can it be doubted that it should be? The constituent elements of this would be serious crime being promoted deliberately for the purpose of persuading of a particular political point of view; activities that create a “risk of serious harm” to public safety, democratic institutions or the rights of others; and that it should be for Parliament, on the application of the Secretary of State, to determine whether a particular group satisfies those requirements. That makes it, in my view, right for it to be unlawful, without having to go through the difficulties—referred to already by noble Lords—of proscribing an organisation as terrorist. I am not expressing any view on that; I actually supported what the Government did, but it is now for the courts to make their determinations, and I do not want to say anything that might suggest otherwise.

This amendment, if it were the law, would make it very clear that, in a limited category of case, where these requirements are met, it would be undoubtedly illegal without having to have issues. There are safeguards there: Parliament has to be involved in that. Secondly, it is clear that it is not proscription as terrorism: that is stated clearly in the amendment. Thirdly, all these elements need to be satisfied. That is why I come back to Amendment 371B from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. I do not support that because it would have the effect of diluting the requirements by making it possible for this to be an offence, even though one of the conditions described in his amendment as conditions 2 and 3 was not met. So, for example, it would mean that, even though the activities do not create a risk of serious harm to public safety, democratic institutions or the rights of others, it would be an offence. That goes too far for me, which is why I would not support his Amendment 371A.

The other issue that will be raised—I am sure that it will be raised by my noble friend the Minister, whom I thank for seeing me, too, to discuss the amendment—is the timing. I, too, have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven; he and I worked very closely together when we were in government, when he was the Director of Public Prosecutions, and I look forward very much to what he has to say. But I am troubled. It will take some time, and there will then have to be a decision by government as to whether it accepts the recommendations. There will then need to be legislative time—and one thing I remember very well from government is the issue of finding legislative time. We have a vehicle here. If this is the right thing to do, this is a moment when it can be done. That is why I regret to say to my noble friend that I support this amendment and I have added my name to it.

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 419 in support of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and the other signatories. It calls for a counterextremism strategy to be published annually. I am also in support of the gist of all the amendments in this group, which are trying to plug the gap in the law exposed by the unwillingness to follow through on the proscription of Palestine Action, in so far as its supporters may be labelled terrorists, but recognises that the activists are carrying out acts of terror, as the court said, that damage the public and our infrastructure.

The Government will no doubt say that they have a strategy, newly issued as Protecting What Matters. At a time of tension, starting long before the current war with Iran but exacerbated by it, the Government have to confront real threats, exemplified, inter alia, by the arrest of four men suspected of working for Iran and being involved in threats to the safety of our community. There have been more than a dozen Iranian-backed attempts at kidnap and murder of our citizens in the last few years, with no doubt more to come. We are talking about matters of life and death.

The Government’s report allegedly identifies Islamist extremism as responsible for most of the terror-related deaths in the past 25 years—and it is good to see the Government saying what is sometimes deemed unspeakable. The Government are also right to resist any attempt to introduce a blasphemy law into Britain. We recall the innocent Batley grammar school teacher still in hiding, simply because he was being a professional teacher. Fortunately, Hamit Coskun was acquitted after burning a Koran: a nasty act, but not one deserving of special punishment. We remain committed to freedom of speech, no matter how rude, and it is not to be silenced by others who find it offensive in their view.

However, I see some blurring of responsibility in the Government’s document, as I saw it reported, when it comes to tackling Islamism. What is the difference between that ideology and Islam in general? Is there not a sliding scale from, at the extreme end, wanting to cover the country with sharia law at the expense of secular law, and at the other going on to be more motivated by what one’s religion might demand, supposedly, than by the law of the land? Continuing on the blurring theme, if the Government’s strategy requires the appointment of an anti-Muslim hostility tsar, this is moving away from equal treatment and leaving the door ajar for unquestioned extremism. The definition of anti-Muslim hatred takes us into the realm of policing offence and dilutes the need to call out extremism and danger if perceived. If divisive content is to be regulated, who determines that, save the noise and outrage from those who feel they are being attacked, again risking muzzling dissent and free speech?

The government report, I fear, is inadequate in protecting the Jewish community. Jews do not count. We number precisely 0.4% of the population. But Jews, young and old, are under threat and confront hatred every day in the streets, in schools, in hospitals, in the arts and online. I welcome the Government’s decision to set up a commission to inquire into antisemitism in schools, but it is slow. Antisemitism today is disguised as anti-Zionism, as the late Lord Sachs pointed out. We see right through that. There is no hatred based on, say, China’s treatment of minorities, or Russia’s, or African states’ treatment of Christians. Jews are singled out. The policing of hate marches and vandalism in the name of politics must be strengthened, and it is not going too far to say that the Jewish community’s trust in the police and the BBC is faltering. The law must set out police powers in this respect, and vandalism, even in the name of politics, must be severely punished. To see the statue of Churchill defaced tells you all you need to know about countering extremism. How much worse it will be if ever there is a start on building a huge, brutal Holocaust memorial next to Parliament.

There is more complication to come. It is reported that the noble Lord, Lord Walney, who deserves the utmost admiration of this House in his standing up to terror and extremism and the defence of our values and freedom, is to issue a report, Undue Influence, which blows the Government’s document out of the water. The noble Lord allegedly reports that there are 30 or so charities linked to Iran that maintain influence here and plot attacks against dissidents and the Jewish community. Some of them are already under the too-slow investigation of the Charity Commission, though it is not its fault, which has called for greater powers. Most chillingly, the noble Lord suggests that there is a reluctance to call them out for fear of being labelled Islamophobic, a fear that might only become worse if the Government’s strategy of tackling what they see as Muslim hatred is put into place. That would muffle still further any attempt to expose what might be going on by way of extreme risk.

On the one hand, the noble Lord, Lord Walney, warns that fear of being labelled racist has stultified the tackling of Iran-linked organisations, while, on the other hand, the Government want the anti-Muslim hatred tsar to protect Muslims from hate and discrimination. The noble Lord calls for more assertive regulation, but the Government want a cohesion strategy that plays down the danger and reassures Muslim communities. The Government’s proposals, as I read them, would increase the fear of being labelled racist or Islamophobic. It would make regulators more cautious and be weaponised by hostile activists to deflect attention away from their plans. The Government’s tsar must be completely limited, if it comes about, to hate crime: regulation should disregard religion and focus on criminal behaviour. A line must be drawn between domestic problems and the influence of Iran and other hostile states. Criticism must not be silenced.

In considering its balancing act, the Government must weigh, on the one hand, the atrocities committed by Islamists in, inter alia, the Manchester Arena, London Bridge, Westminster Bridge, the Underground, the Lee Rigby murder, Glasgow Airport, Heaton Park—and there are other incidents—and the risk, on the other hand, of not allowing the identification of further such calamities for fear of Islamophobia. The Government need to draw up a new strategy that protects Muslims at home from discrimination but does not create an atmosphere that allows hostile organisations to cry Islamophobia when their activities are under scrutiny for fear of terrorism. It is a difficult task, which is why the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and I and the other signatories of this amendment are asking the Government to accept this amendment and move forward.

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 371A from the noble Lord, Lord Walney, because it addresses a difficult area—something that falls short of terrorism and which causes problems for legislators, policing and the courts. Terrorism is fairly well understood. It is the application or the threat of violence for a political purpose; it is easily stated. In this case, it seems to me that there are some indications that there might be a gap. It is not the first time we have been confronted by this problem. Before terrorism was defined—probably by the terrorism which started in Northern Ireland—in the 1930s, we saw that people were parading on the streets for political motives, so legislation had to be introduced on uniforms and various other things that indicated that people were trying to use violence or political aspirations to influence the Government.

It seems that the gap that has evolved is around Palestine Action. There are probably three indicators of a need for a solution to a gap that has developed. First, we have had a criminal case in which a police officer was hit by someone with a hammer, and the people who appeared to have been involved have been found not guilty. That case has been appealed, but that one issue has obviously caused some concern for everybody affected—the police, in part, but mainly the businesses being attacked by this group. The second case is a civil case, which is already—

May I just correct the noble Lord? In that case, what happened was that the jury could not agree and there is a retrial of those serious criminal allegations.

That is quite right, and thank you for that correction, although, clearly, they were not found guilty.

Secondly, the civil case is about prohibition. The High Court has decided that it does not prefer the Government’s judgment that Palestine Action should be a proscribed group. I find that constitutionally quite odd. I understand that sometimes, the court will come to a different opinion on legislation, but it seems to me that the Government, faced with the best information possible, have concluded that it should be proscribed, and the court has decided that that is not proportionate. Whatever the outcome on appeal—which the noble Lord, Lord Walney, has alluded to and we will hear eventually—this needs to be resolved quickly because it is hard to understand.

Both cases might indicate that there were some doubts about the proscription of this group. Most of the time, terrorist groups are obvious. Terrorism is mass and indiscriminate violence that murders tens of people. We see it and it is very obvious. In this case I did wonder, but sometimes governments have information that the rest of us do not. One of the other signs, which has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Walney, was that, when support began to be expressed for a proscribed group, people then said, “This is quite odd; why are we arresting them?” They did not have the same qualms about Irish terrorism or about ISIS when they were beheading citizens of this country. It indicates that, perhaps, there is something different about this group. The Amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Walney, has identified a reasonable solution to that gap. Conspiracy alone is not a sufficient answer. It is possible to charge someone with conspiracy to commit a violent act or conspiracy to riot, but you cannot prosecute people who might fund that conspiracy. This amendment would start to address the protest group and the way it is funded and supported.

My final point—quite narrowly defined in this sense—is that this is about the intent to cause serious harm to public safety or to affect public policy and democracy. Both are substantial bars to pass before somebody could be convicted of this offence. The Government ought seriously to consider filling the gap with this amendment, or, if they do not, with something very much like it.

My Lords, I support Amendments 371A, 419 and 441B, to which I have added my name. It is clear that attacking a police officer with a sledgehammer or breaking into an RAF base and damaging two planes, causing £7 million-worth of damage, is not a peaceful protest. Amendment 371A rightly targets that grey area between ordinary protest groups and groups that cross the threshold to be proscribed under terrorism law. These are groups whose purpose and practice involves the deliberate commission of criminal damage, riot, violent disorder and interference with national infrastructure.

When groups are legislated against, often, splinter groups form and these groups are left to fester. Amendment 371A would give greater power to the Secretary of State to deal with extremism at its root, rather than waiting for it to grow and meet the terrorist threshold. By this point, it becomes too late and the harms, which are sometimes irreparable, may have already occurred. Responsible governance means intervening before that point is reached. For those reasons, I support this amendment. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, for his tenacity and I support his amendment.

Often, our approach has been far too reactive, notwithstanding the announcement being made in the other place. As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said, the Jewish community in this country knows all too well how rhetoric and ideological radicalisation can create a climate of fear. Between 2024 and 2025, at least 10 and probably more terrorism cases against British Jews or UK-based Israeli interests were uncovered. These plots were foiled thanks to the extraordinary work of the counterterrorism police and the Community Security Trust.

We have created an environment where extremism is allowed to grow unchallenged. Are we just going to wait until there is another attack on a synagogue or a credible plot against a Jewish school? At that point, it is too late. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, recognises that extremism rarely appears suddenly; it develops gradually through networks, narratives and campaigns that legitimise hostility. Left unchallenged, these dynamics can become embedded in communities and online spaces, creating an environment where more serious forms of criminality or even terrorism become more likely. Amendment 419 is about ensuring that our response to extremism is enduring, co-ordinated and strategic. Above all, it is about ensuring that the Government are equipped with the tools and the institutional framework necessary to address extremism before it escalates into violence.

Finally, Amendment 441B in this group, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, and the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, seeks to ensure that organisations which promote or support criminal conduct or which attempt to subvert the constitutional integrity or democratic institutions of the United Kingdom are prohibited from receiving public funds. Such a safeguard is well overdue. It would ensure that taxpayers’ money cannot, whether deliberately or inadvertently, support organisations whose activities threaten public safety or the foundations of our democracy. Public funds should strengthen society, not subsidise those who seek to destabilise it.

It remains far too difficult to challenge organisations that continue to receive public support despite clear evidence that their leaders promote extremist ideologies, including those who openly aspire to replace democratic governments with a religious caliphate. This loophole allows public money to reach bodies fundamentally at odds with our democratic principles. This amendment would close that unacceptable gap. It would protect public funds from misuse and send an unequivocal message that any attempt to undermine the democratic institutions of the United Kingdom should not and will not be tolerated.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Walney, Lord Pannick and Lord Hogan-Howe, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, for listening in Committee. Reservations were raised, and it is refreshing and unusual to have an Amendment brought back that tries to take into account some of the issues that were raised in good faith. The fact that the amendment has now been posed as not unduly undermining freedom of speech or association and does not criminalise expressions of support is very useful. That it is so much narrower in scope makes it much more something I support—not that everyone has been waiting for that point, but none the less.

More seriously, the pre-proscription point is really important. My dread is that what has happened with Palestine Action, without getting into the court case, has discredited what proscription is about and watered down what people think terrorism is. These much more granular attempts at making distinctions are so important.

However, we need to acknowledge the dangers in what we mean by “extremism” in relation to this whole group of amendments, especially today, when the Government’s pronouncements on anti-extremism are coming out. We should acknowledge that those who hold the pen on any legal definition of extremism acquire extraordinary powers to curtail free speech, criminalise people and so on. It makes this a difficult issue. In a democratic, pluralist society there is invariably a wide range of beliefs and opinions that can be dubbed extremist. That means we have some potholes to negotiate, as it can lead to partisan, subjective or political labelling of dissenting views that can be dubbed extremist.

I raise that because it is not straightforward. We might think that we all know what we mean by “extremist”. I have agreed with all the examples I have heard today—I have thought, “I don’t like them either—I’ll dub them extremist”. The problem is when it is used a bit more promiscuously. If the definition is “something that completely undermines democratic norms and values”, up until recently I would have thought that anyone attacking the democratic norm of the key legal protection traditionally afforded to due process, which has gone on for hundreds of years, was an extremist, but now we have a Government pushing to abolish jury trials and I am meant to accept it as straightforward.

I thank the noble Baroness for recognising what has been done in this Amendment, but it does not actually talk about extremism. It talks about “extreme criminal protest groups”. It may reassure her that the definition does not depend on the views being put forward being extremist but the actions and particular conduct—riot and so forth. I offer that to reassure her on the point she is making, which otherwise I am listening to very carefully.

I thank the noble and learned Lord for that clarity. That is true for that Amendment. I was going on to talk about why I am sympathetic to Amendment 419, which calls on the Government to publish a counterextremism strategy, while recognising that, when we do so, we must acknowledge that this is a difficult area. Amendment 371A has carefully avoided being about views and opinions, but not all the amendments in this group do. We have to be very careful when we talk about extremism.

On Amendment 419, one should congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, on his persistence, as has been said. I like the amendment because it calls for a review to be published annually. The announcement today that there is a strategy does not make this amendment irrelevant, because we need to carry on updating and looking carefully at what we mean by this. Laying that before Parliament seems important. On the pre-emption of the new social cohesion document, Protecting What Matters, it is certainly being posed as an anti-extremism strategy but is likely to get into all sorts of difficulties precisely because of this uncertainty about what we mean by extremism, beyond the controversy over the special representative on anti-Muslim hostility.

The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has talked about the difficulties there. I am very anxious about it. I have been contacted since the announcement by people working on the grooming gangs who are worried that they would not be able to raise the issue with this definition—even though they are not quite sure what it is yet, so fair enough—as well as academics working on cousin marriage and so on. There has been some enthusiasm in certain quarters, saying that we should now name and shame all the media organisations dominated by anti-Muslim hatred. You can already see supporters of this new definition, such as it is, gearing up to start pointing fingers and they have started naming names. It is fair enough, but with this leaked document saying that national symbols such as the union flag can be a tool of hate used to intimidate and exclude, that it is an extremist symbol and so on, you can see why people would be anxious.

Apparently, in the document we are asking universities to manage external speakers to ensure that we keep out extremists. I am not sure I want university managers, who tend to be on the progressive side, deciding who the extremists are—especially on a day when we have just heard that 27 UK university Islamic societies, including at UCL, Imperial, Bristol, Leeds, Warwick, Cambridge and all sorts of places, have had memorials to Iran’s Supreme Leader. It is not the external speakers, but what is happening in the universities. We think about Professor Michael Ben-Gad, an economics lecturer who has been called an extremist by his own students because he was in the IDF, and been threatened with beheading, or the Jewish chaplain at the University of Leeds whose wife and two children, only a couple of years ago, were forced into hiding. The university authorities let all that happen.

I am simply raising the point that, although the strategy is out and we have a group of amendments where we all think we know what we mean by extremism, it is not that easy and this strategy will not solve all the problems. Therefore, I support the call for an annual discussion of where we are at with extremism; we should be having a much more open and full discussion, not just in Parliament but with the public, rather than treating them as the problem—the extremists, who need to be managed and policed—about the problems we are trying to solve.

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Goodman and the noble Lord, Lord Walney, but I would also like to see highlighted in any reports coming forward the increasing attacks on Hindu and Sikh communities. They are not being reported widely, but unfortunately they are on the increase, and we are having worrying discussions internally on how to deal with them.

My Lords, I declare my interest as director of the Free Speech Union. I too share the reservations of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, about the Government’s decision today to publish an official definition of anti-Muslim hostility and to appoint a tsar to ensure that it is observed. There are already adequate protections in the law for people of all faiths; I am thinking in particular of the proscription of the stirring up of religious hatred in the Public Order Act 1986 and the proscription of discrimination by employers on religious grounds of employees, applicants to jobs or service providers.

I am not persuaded that Muslims need particular protections over and above those that all faith groups are granted under the law. I am not convinced that in a city such as Leicester, for instance, publishing a definition of anti-Muslim hostility but not anti-Hindu hostility will allay rather than exacerbate community tensions. I hope there will be an opportunity for your Lordships’ House to opine on the entire action plan unveiled today when the House discusses the Statement in due course.

I do, however, support the Amendment 371A from the noble Lord, Lord Walney. There are some extreme criminal protest groups who do not deserve the kind of free speech protections that other groups deserve, precisely because they use their free speech and right to protest to bully, intimidate and threaten those they seek to silence.

The Free Speech Union was itself the victim of an extreme criminal protest group that my noble friend referred to while speaking to this amendment and the supplementary amendment: Bash Back. It stole some data from the Free Speech Union’s website in a cyber attack, including the details of some small donors, some of whom had donated to some extremely sensitive crowdfunding campaigns in the expectation that they were doing so privately. That data, however, was stolen and published on Bash Back’s website. That was designed not only to silence those with whom it disagrees but to intimidate, bully and threaten an organisation that is simply defending the right to speak of those that Bash Back disagrees with.

Therefore, I think there are circumstances in which the Home Secretary should have the power to designate and proscribe certain extreme criminal protest groups. This more nuanced measure, particularly with the supplementary amendment, is a more attractive alternative to the present arrangement. In addition to defending a wide variety of people who have not broken the law, the Free Speech Union is currently engaged in defending a Palestine Action protester who was arrested and has been charged just for expressing support for Palestine Action by holding up a sign saying, “I support Palestine Action”. It is very difficult to defend the prosecution of people who merely express support for what I would think of as an extreme criminal protest group, not a terrorist group.

I therefore urge your Lordships to support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Walney, as it creates a degree of nuance, and I believe that proscribing groups that deserve to be proscribed without also making it a criminal offence to express support for those groups is a welcome compromise.

My Lords, despite having some hesitation about it, we are broadly support of Amendment 371A from the noble Lord, Lord Walney. The concept of the new category of extreme criminal protest groups that are not proscribed has real merit and is plainly an attempt to plug an uncomfortable gap. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Walney, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, that unlawfulness is at the heart of this amendment. The amendment states that the group must have

“as its purpose and practice the deliberate commission of” one of a series of serious offences, and that

“such offences are carried out with the intention of influencing public policy, parliamentary debate, ministerial decision-making, or the exercise of democratic functions”, and that,

“the activities … create a risk of serious harm to public safety, democratic institutions, or the rights of others”.

Those provisions make it clear that extreme criminal protest groups are well named. The provisions as a whole would also make it clear, however, that it is not appropriate for proscription of those groups whereby any support for the groups is made a criminal offence under the Terrorism Act.

If the amendment would avoid the prosecution of peaceful protesters for peaceable support of groups that could be branded terrorist under the Terrorist Act, we could support it unconditionally because there would then be a hierarchy of offences. At the top of the tree would be offences under the Terrorism Act, and then the treatment of groups which qualified as extreme criminal protest groups under the Walney amendment. But the Government have not committed and would not commit—and I do not suppose they will at this stage commit—to end prosecutions for peaceable protesters under the Terrorism Act. That may change after the Macdonald review, or it may change if the Government’s appeal against the High Court’s decision in relation to Palestine Action is unsuccessful. However, our position is that it would be helpful to have a middle course, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, pointed out in very sensible terms. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, articulated the same point very well, but in a different way.

The problem we see with the amendment is that it does not affect the Terrorism Act, and there would remain the potential for prosecution of peaceful protesters under that Act as the law stands. So we have decided, with some hesitation, that it is probably sensible to await the Macdonald review. I accept that I am making that point in the face of the argument made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that we should not be asking for any legislation along the lines of the Walney amendment to wait at all. Of course, there is the problem that not accepting this amendment would leave us with the limited choice of the Terrorism Act or nothing, and that is a very unfortunate position to be in.

We have some concerns about the drafting of the amendment, and they are not minimal. Under proposed subsection (3)(b),

“promotion of a designated ECPG, including public advocacy, recruitment, or dissemination of the group’s materials” would be an offence. Would subsection (3)(b) cover handing out leaflets or carrying posters or flags in a peaceable way? In proposed subsection (3)(e),

“providing material support, training, funds or equipment to the group where the person knows or ought reasonably to know that the recipient is a designated ECPG” suggests that the level of knowledge required is very low. What is material support? What would count as equipment? Would posters, flags or banners count as equipment? It would be considerably worrying if the answer to those questions was positive.

In sum, we are broadly supportive and believe that there should be a middle category, but we are concerned about the amendment as it stands. The Government should be seriously considering their position between now and Third Reading; they should listen to the very strong feeling in the House that something is needed in the way of a middle course that would prevent these prosecutions for peaceable protest and support under the Terrorism Act. They should then come back to the House at Third Reading with an amendment that could answer the criticisms and gain widespread support.

Finally, we have considerable sympathy with Amendment 419 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, which calls for the publication of a counterextremism strategy.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. Noble Lords have spoken of the effects that these groups can have when they go unchecked, and I think that the whole House has benefited from listening to these anecdotes. We cannot stand for a society in which violent, insurrectionary behaviour is normalised. Groups such as Palestine Action or Bash Back should not be allowed to exist given their past actions, and this Amendment provides for that. That said, their supporters are not advocates of general terrorist activities and, while they support morally dubious causes, requiring their arrest for standing outside with a placard is a monumental waste of police time.

For similar reasons, I also support Amendment 419, tabled by my noble friend Lord Goodman. His is a very simple amendment, which merely asks the Government to publish a counterextremism strategy, given the ever-increasing extent of political extremism and its encouragement in some quarters. Amendment 371A strikes a balance. It adds nuance to a category of offences that desperately needs it, and we wholly support its intent. I hope that the Minister will agree. I am happy to withdraw my Amendment 371B and, should the noble Lord, Lord Walney, wish to divide the House, we will support him.

Amendment 371B (to Amendment 371A) withdrawn.

A lot has been discussed this evening, and I will try to respond to the amendments as best I can. I welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Walney, has moved his Amendment. I had a chance to talk to him earlier online; he has arrived on time, and I am pleased he is here to move it. He has had support from across the House, including from the noble Lords, Lord Polak, Lord Pannick and, in part, Lord Davies, and my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith, and I thank him for his amendment. Other noble Lords and Baronesses have spoken in favour of the legislation, and I note the comments made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Verma, and, in the context of this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. I will come to the separate amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, in due course.

The nub of the argument is that Amendment 371A shows that there is an impact of sustained criminal activity, including serious incidents involving damage to property, intimidation and risks to public safety, and it should be dealt with as an interim measure between proscription and criminal damage legislation as a whole. I outlined to the noble Lord, Lord Walney, in a recent letter that the Public Order Act 1986 grants police powers to manage protests by imposing conditions, and looks at those it is necessary to place on protests, including location, route and date. I also pointed out to the noble Lords, Lord Walney and Lord Pannick, and my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith, whom I also met today, that the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, is currently undertaking an independent review of public order and hate crime legislation, which will cover whether existing legislation is effective and proportionate. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, acknowledged that the review, which will report later in the spring, will discuss and give some potential framework to the existing legislation. Also, the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme, the action we have taken on Palestine Action under the 2000 Act, the work of Prevent and the protest legislation in the Bill are all measures that deal with similar issues to those the noble Lord, Lord Walney, has brought forward.

To come to the nub of the problem, which I hope noble Lords will accept, I understand that there are a range of views on the amendment, and I may find myself in a minority on this if it goes to a Division, which I hope it will not. When I look at the amendment itself, if there was such a tool as that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Walney, below the threshold in the Terrorism Act 2000, it would not have stopped the Government proscribing Palestine Action under the 2000 Act. The assessment was made that Palestine Action passed the statutory test for proscription at that time. As noble Lords will be aware, although there is a Court of Appeal hearing on Palestine Action, the High Court agreed in its first consideration that Palestine Action had organised and undertaken actions amounting to terrorism. A case is pending that will be reviewed and the Government will have to respond to it in due course.

However, I would argue that, at present, we have the tools in existing public order and related legislation to tackle the type of criminality that the noble Lord, Lord Walney, mentioned. We are significantly upscaling our efforts on counterextremism as a whole. Groups that meet the Terrorism Act threshold, and individuals acting on their behalf or in support of them, will be dealt with under existing proscription powers. Where groups do not meet the threshold for proscription, we will continue to assess the activities of organisations against our legal frameworks and existing legislation. If there is evidence of purposeful actions that are potentially radicalising others into terrorism or violence, proportionate action will be taken. I have mentioned already things such as Prevent, the protest legislation and other measures. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, will review those matters in due course.

To answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and others, that the Government have brought forward legislation, we have commissioned the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, to undertake a review, but the amendments we have brought forward are in response to urgent matters that we felt we needed to tackle. I have tabled those in relation to protest legislation to ensure that we manage difficult challenges by putting forward legislation on, for example, protests, marches and giving the police powers. I suggest to the noble Lords, Lord Walney and Lord Pannick, that it is something we should take our time to consider. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, is bringing forward his review shortly, in the spring. This amendment, whether in its original form or as amended by Amendment 371B put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, effectively seeks to create a parallel regime to that in the Terrorism Act, which the Government believe is not necessary and risks unjustified interference with rights to free speech and freedom of association. The Government must be able to protect our citizens from the harm of extremism, violence and hatred but, in doing so, we must strike the right balance between protecting freedom of speech and tackling those who promote violence and hatred in our communities.

Amendment 441B, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Walney, concerns access to public funds for organisations promoting or supporting criminal conduct. Again, I say to him that the Government provide funding to a huge range of organisations through grant schemes administered by departments and arm’s-length bodies across government. Any grants of public funds are subject to Treasury guidance set out in Managing Public Money, which looks at risk, control and assurances that grant controllers are required to take into account. Is the legislative route required?

Today, and this goes to the heart of amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, we have published the social cohesion action plan. A number of comments have been made about the issues in the plan, including by the noble Baronesses, Lady Verma and Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe. It was put on the website probably less than an hour ago and is many pages long. I simply ask that Members look at what is in it, its context and the things we are trying to challenge so that all communities, whatever their religion, can live their lives in freedom, and so that we have social cohesion in what is, and will remain, a multicultural society. The engagement principles will be updated so that public bodies do not confer legitimacy, funding or influence on extremist groups.

On Amendment 419, which would require the publication of a counterextremism strategy, the noble Lord said that he has raised it in Questions, in amendments in Committee and in Grand Committee in a special debate. We are looking at the issues he has raised; there will be further updates and reports on the matter, and I advise him to look at the social cohesion strategy—which, as I said, was produced within the past hour—in full.

Extremists often deliberately operate without meeting thresholds for criminal conduct and cannot be prosecuted for their actions. Despite this, this Government still have a responsibility to protect our citizens from the harm of extremism, violence and hatred. But in doing so, we still have to protect the balance between freedom of speech and tackling those who promote violence and hatred in our communities.

We have been very clear in our approach to counterterrorism and counterextremism. We have an overarching counterterrorism strategy, an approach that ensures counterextremism efforts are focused on the highest harm threats, in direct support of our core counterterrorism and wider security mission. The local social cohesion strategy, published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in the past hour following a Statement in the House of Commons—which I suspect will be repeated here shortly—is trying to marry those things together to provide social cohesion. I hope that answers the points from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, on those issues.

Finally, with Prevent, Contest and the definitions of extremism we have examined, set out by the previous Government in 2024, we believe there are strong mechanisms to tackle extremism while ensuring we support all members of our society. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said that Jews do not count. I say to her, genuinely, that everybody in society counts; everybody has a right to protection; and everybody has a right to live their lives free from persecution, harassment, terrorist activity and extremism. I felt genuinely sorry when she said that phrase. We are trying to support all members of our community, particularly the Jewish community. If she looks at the measures in the Bill, she will see they have been driven by allowing people to express their religion and for them not to be harassed or put into a box by people on marches and protests on a regular basis. That is what we are trying to do.

I understand where the noble Lord, Lord Walney, is coming from, but I wish for him to withdraw and not to push his amendment. We have a framework in place to deal with criminal activity and those organisations that cross the terrorism threshold, and to ensure through the social cohesion strategy that all members of our community have the right to live a free life in the United Kingdom.

My Lords, this has been an excellent and thoughtful debate, and I have been touched by the kind words and expressions of support from nearly all sides of the House. I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said, and I hope he knows how much I respect the work that he and the Government do, but on this occasion I am not convinced by his central assertion that the framework exists and is working.

The Minister raised the issue of Palestine Action, as so many have done across the Chamber today. It is indeed looming large over this discussion. Whether or not you take the view that the Government were right in proscribing Palestine Action, the fact that it took five years of this organisation committing criminal damage in a sustained and organised way before it was deemed to have met the terrorism threshold—which is now obviously being challenged, and I hope the Government win on appeal—shows that there is a gap. This gap is not filled by the public order measures which are used to place conditions on marches, which the Minister has cited in response as to why the framework is working. That is a different thing.

I am really pleased—and it is really unusual—to get such a broad expression from, reductively, the Conservatives to the Liberal Democrat Benches on a difficult issue like this. It shows that it is proportionate. I quote in conclusion the words of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, back at him. He has—reluctantly, I would think—come to the view that he will abstain, but he made the point himself that not supporting this Amendment leaves on the table a choice between the status quo of doing nothing, or full terrorism proscription. I really respect his view that he would like to see encouragement of proscribed terrorist organisations taken off. That is a complex question, but if I had opened that up in this amendment, the whole thing would probably have been subsumed.

Therefore, it is right that we push this particular narrow change to the legislation. The Government and the Minister’s concerns can be tightened up after this, when the Bill goes into ping-pong. Then, we can deal with the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, in the shortest order after that. With that all having been said, I would like to test the opinion of the House on this matter.

Ayes 200, Noes 162.

Amendment 371A agreed.

Schedule 14: Specified memorials

Amendment 372 not moved.