The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on
Thursday 14 March. “With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like
to make a Statement about the next steps that we are taking in the
Government’s strategy to counter extremism and to build greater
national resilience and social cohesion. The United Kingdom is a
success story: a multinational, multi-ethnic and multifaith
democracy, stronger because of our diversity. However, our
democracy and values of...Request free
trial
The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on
Thursday 14 March.
“With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a
Statement about the next steps that we are taking in the
Government’s strategy to counter extremism and to build greater
national resilience and social cohesion.
The United Kingdom is a success story: a multinational,
multi-ethnic and multifaith democracy, stronger because of our
diversity. However, our democracy and values of inclusivity and
tolerance are under challenge from extremist groups that are
radicalising our young people and driving greater polarisation
within and between communities to further their own ends. In
order to protect our democratic values and enhance social
cohesion, it is important both to reinforce what we all have in
common and to be clear and precise in identifying the dangers
posed by extremism.
As our new definition makes clear, extremism can lead to the
radicalisation of individuals, deny people their full rights and
opportunities, suppress freedom of expression, incite hatred,
weaken social cohesion and, ultimately, lead to acts of
terrorism. Most extremist materials and activities are not
illegal and do not meet the terrorism or the national security
threshold. For example, Islamist and neo-Nazi groups in Britain
are operating lawfully, but they advocate and work towards the
replacement of democracy with an Islamist or Nazi society.
The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has been
working with local authorities, civil society and faith groups,
especially in those areas where social cohesion is most under
strain, to de-escalate tensions and to explore the most
constructive support that we can offer. From our engagement we
hear widespread unease about the safety and security of community
organisations, political candidates and elected officials.
Councillors have been threatened with violence; council meetings
have been disrupted; council officers and elected members talk of
walking a tightrope, terrified of inadvertently saying the wrong
thing or offending one side or the other. Many choose to remain
silent and to take no action, such is the chilling element of
these extremist groups on our democracy.
It is gravely concerning that the conflict in the Middle East is
driving further polarisation. We have seen a terrible increase in
anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim hate crime, as well as a very
significant increase in radicalisation. Troublingly, there is
also evidence that some Islamists and extreme right-wing groups
and others who seek to tear our society apart are working
together to maximise the reach of their message and cause. That
is why the work of civil society organisations such as
the Community Security
Trust and Tell MAMA, as well as Muslims Against
Anti-Semitism, the educational charity Solutions Not Sides and
the Forum for Discussion of Israel and Palestine, is so
important. We have provided additional funding for the CST and
Tell MAMA to counter anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hatred, and we
will do more. We will shortly establish a new fund to provide
additional, direct and tangible support for grass-roots
organisations, building bridges and fighting division. I commend
those who are doing so much to counter prejudice.
Working in civil society, it is critical that we do not
unwittingly, or through ignorance, fund or otherwise support
organisations or individuals who are themselves extremist. In the
past, it has unfortunately been the case that extremist groups
and actors have sought to present themselves as moderate voices
representative of majority or mainstream opinion. The Government
have had a definition of extremism since 2011. It has helped
inform our Prevent counterterrorism work and was designed to
assist the Government in engagement. But in a considerable number
of cases organisations and individuals with views that are
clearly extreme have nevertheless benefited from state
engagement, endorsement and support, and furthermore have
exploited that association to further their extremist
agendas.
Among the most significant was Shakeel Begg, who was labelled an
Islamist extremist by a judge. Mr Begg, an NHS chaplain and
regular speaker at state schools, ran Lewisham Islamic Centre and
was on both the Metropolitan Police’s independent advisory group
in Lewisham and Lewisham’s standing advisory committee on
religious education. In 2016, Mr Begg sued the BBC when it
described him, accurately, as an extremist. The judge in the
case, Mr Justice Haddon-Cave, conducted his own scrupulous
research, identifying many occasions when Mr Begg had advocated
extreme positions, including promoting and encouraging religious
violence, and by telling a Muslim audience that violence in
support of Islam would constitute a man’s greatest deed. Mr
Justice Haddon-Cave not only dismissed Mr Begg’s claim but drew
specific attention to the danger of extremists exploiting
sponsorship from state institutions. He outlined the need for an
updated and more precise definition of extremism to guide
engagement by government and others.
We have since seen how figures of potential extremism concern
have been able to work with the Crown Prosecution Service and the
Metropolitan Police, co-opt charities and benefit from public
funding. We know from William Shawcross’s excellent independent
review of Prevent that such engagement has inadvertently provided
a platform, funding or legitimacy for groups or individuals who
oppose our shared values. This apparent legitimising of their
views can lead extremists of all ideologies to be emboldened and
to exert greater influence. That is why today my department is
publishing an updated, more precise and rigorous definition of
extremism, alongside a set of cross-government engagement
principles for use when engaging with external groups. There is
also detailed guidance on what the definition does and does not
capture. We are also setting up a new counterextremism centre of
excellence in my department, as a world-leading authority on best
practice, data and research.
Our plans, drawn up in close collaboration with the Home Office,
will enable the Government to express more clearly than ever
before which groups fall within the extremism definition, point
to the evidence, and explain the funding and engagement
consequences. They will also support national efforts to counter
the work of extremists who promote their ideologies both online
and offline. The new definition will strengthen vital front-line
counter-radicalisation work. The new centre of excellence will
also help us to understand the role played by state actors and
state-linked organisations in extremist activity that is taking
place in our country. The wider knowledge of what constitutes
extremist behaviour and who is behind it will, I hope, help all
of us to identify potential threats, and to take steps to
challenge and marginalise them.
Critically, the rights that we enjoy in the United Kingdom extend
to everyone. Freedom of expression, freedom of religion and
belief, the rule of law, democracy and equal rights—these are the
cornerstones of our civilised society that government and
Parliament, on both sides of the House, strive always to uphold.
To be clear, our definition will not affect gender-critical
campaigners, those with conservative religious beliefs, trans
activists, environmental protest groups or those exercising their
proper right to free speech. In drawing up the new definition,
the Government have taken every possible precaution to strike a
balance between protecting fundamental rights and safeguarding
citizens. Our definition draws on the work of Dame Sara Khan, the
Government’s independent reviewer of social cohesion, and Sir
Mark Rowley, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, before his
appointment to that post.
The proposed definition will hold that extremism is the promotion
or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or
intolerance that aims to: negate or destroy the fundamental
rights and freedoms of others; undermine, overturn or replace the
UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic
rights; or intentionally create a permissive environment for
others to achieve those results. While the Government in no way
intend to restrict freedom of expression, religion or belief, we
cannot be in a position where, unwittingly or not, we sponsor,
subsidise or support in any way organisations and individuals
opposed to the freedoms that we hold dear.
Across the House, I am sure that we agree that organisations such
as the British National Socialist Movement and Patriotic
Alternative, which promote neo-Nazi ideology and argue for forced
repatriation, a white ethno-state and the targeting of minority
groups for intimidation, are precisely the type of groups about
which we should be concerned and whose activities we will assess
against the new definition. The activities of the extreme right
wing are a growing worry. The targeting of both Muslim and Jewish
communities and individuals by these groups is a profound concern
requiring concerted action.
As with our definition of extremism, it is important that we be
precise in our use of language when discussing Islamism. Islamism
should never be confused with Islam. Islam is a great faith, a
religion of peace that provides spiritual nourishment for
millions, inspires countless acts of charity, and celebrates the
virtues of generosity, compassion and kindness. Islamism is a
totalitarian ideology that seeks to divide, calls for the
establishment of an Islamic state governed by sharia law, and
seeks the overthrow of liberal democratic principles. It has its
roots in the thinking of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood,
Hassan al-Banna, the founder of Jamaat-e-Islami, Abul A’la
al-Maududi, and the Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Sayyid Qutb. The
Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood is, of course,
Hamas. Organisations such as the Muslim Association of Britain,
which is the British affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood, and
other groups such as CAGE and MEND, give rise to concern because
of their Islamist orientation and views. We will be holding those
and other organisations to account to assess whether they meet
our definition of extremism, and will take action as
appropriate.
There are, of course, further steps that we will take in the
coming days and weeks to marginalise extremist groups, and to
support and strengthen the communities where extremists are most
active and spreading division. They will include responding to
Dame Sara Khan’s forthcoming report on social cohesion and
democratic resilience, and Lord Walney’s independent review of
how to counter political violence and disruption. In this debate,
we must never forget about the experiences of victims of
extremism who are targeted by extremist groups and the severe and
distressing impact that that has on their lives, and I am pleased
that Dame Sara Khan will be addressing that in her forthcoming
report.
As the Prime Minister has said, the time has come for us all to
stand together to combat the forces of division and beat this
poison. The liberties that we hold dear, and indeed the
democratic principles that we are all sent here to uphold,
require us to counter and challenge the extremists who seek to
intimidate, to coerce and to divide. We must be clear-eyed about
the threat that we face, precise about where that threat comes
from, and rigorous in defending our democracy. That means
upholding freedom of expression, religion and belief when it is
threatened, facing down harassment and hate, supporting the
communities facing the greatest challenge from extremist
activity, and ensuring that the House and the country are safe,
free and united. I commend this Statement to the House”.
6.27pm
(Lab)
My Lords, hateful extremism threatens the safety of our
communities and the unity of our country. It is a serious problem
demanding a serious response. When it comes to national security,
the threat of radicalisation and the scourge of Islamophobia,
anti-Semitism, neo-Nazism or any other corrosive hatred, the
whole House can and should stand together. I welcome that the
Statement addresses concerns about the dangers facing our elected
representatives. We can all agree that nobody who has stepped up
to take on a role as an act of public service should find
themselves facing threats or harassment as a result, either to
themselves or to their families and staff.
However, I have some questions. As far back as 7 June 2011, the
then Conservative Home Secretary told the other place:
“If organisations do not support the values of democracy, human
rights, equality before the law, participation in society … we
will not work with them and we will not fund them”.—[Official
Report, Commons, 7/6/11; col. 53.]
What has been happening between 2011 and now? Have Ministers been
engaging with groups that they now regard as extremist?
I welcome that the Statement says strongly and clearly that the
diversity of our country makes us stronger. I agree
wholeheartedly with that. We all need to show that we mean it.
The way in which the Government do this work matters and the
language that we all use is important. At a time when we face the
risk of real division in our communities, it is crucial that all
of us in politics avoid fanning the flames of division any
further.
Labour will want to scrutinise the Government’s plans in this
area, as in any other, but if Ministers behave responsibly then
we will engage in good faith. However, given the sensitivities of
these issues, it was unhelpful that, before the Statement was
finally made to Parliament, we had to endure days of briefing,
and inevitably speculation, about the scope of the new definition
and who might be covered by it.
There was a longer debate on this Statement when made it in another place, and
I do not propose to revisit all the arguments made there, but I
think this House would like to understand more about exactly what
the Government propose to do. If the means by which it is decided
that an organisation meets the criteria in the new definition is
to be truly evidence-led, the process must be robust and be
allowed to take its course. The nature of that process is, at
least to me, still rather opaque.
I have some questions about how the definition will work in
practice. How will the new centre of excellence operate and how
it will be resourced? Who will take the decision to declare that
an organisation meets the definition of extremism, and is that
decision subject to appeal? Can the Minister confirm that this
will apply only to central government and not to local or
regional government or devolved Administrations? Is it intended
that it will apply, now or at any later stage, to other public
bodies or to services such as the police or universities? What is
happening with the appointment of a new Islamophobia adviser?
I have talked to people from a number of groups from different
faith communities, many of whom are worried that they may find
themselves caught by this new definition. The Statement says that
the definition
“will not affect gender-critical campaigners, those with
conservative religious beliefs, trans activists, environmental
protest groups or those exercising their proper right to free
speech”.
Can the Minister say any more about which groups it will affect,
and on what basis the Government have chosen to draw the
line?
I have a few more questions. We all know there has been a huge
surge in online extremism. What action is being taken across
government to assess and confront online hate? Will the
Government be publishing a new cross-government counter-extremism
strategy, given that the last one is now very out of date? Will
it include action to rebuild the resilience and cohesion of our
communities? What new funding will there be in this area and what
will be done to invest in multi-faith dialogue? Given the
appalling surge in anti-Semitism and Islamophobia in recent
months, will we soon see an updated hate crime action plan?
To tackle extremism we need to work with people of good will at
all levels. The Statement says that DLUHC has been working with
faith groups, civil society and local councils. All of those have
a crucial role to play in tackling extremism, but as shadow Faith
Minister, I talk to a lot of faith groups and I have no idea
which were consulted or what the results of that consultation
were. Can the Minster tell us more about the consultation and its
findings?
We all agree that we need strong action to tackle the corrosive
forms of hatred that devastate lives and damage our communities.
This is a moment when politicians must take firm action, but it
is also a moment when we need to be statesmen and stateswomen. We
should remember the words of the most reverend Primates the
Archbishops of Canterbury and York, who warned that, against the
backdrop of growing divisions, it is for political leaders to
provide “a conciliatory tone” and to
“pursue policies that bring us together, not risk driving us
apart”.
has made it clear that if
Ministers behave responsibly, if they reach out to other parties
to seek to build consensus, rather than using the issue for party
gain in a pre-election period, we will engage in good faith. I
hope the Minister can give us good assurances on this front. I
look forward to her reply.
(LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady
Sherlock, most of whose wise words I agree with. I am grateful to
the Minister for our meeting earlier.
The majority of us agree that hateful extremism and hate crimes
threaten society and the safety of our communities and undermine
social cohesion. I will speak quite plainly today. The
Government’s new non-statutory definition of extremism has not
been universally welcomed or embraced, and it has created
concerns that it will be used disproportionately to target
British Muslim communities and organisations that the Government
of the day may disagree with.
Singling out a number of mainstream law-abiding British Muslim
organisations that have contributed to society over many years
sets a dangerous precedent, undermining democracy, religious
freedoms and free speech. I echo the words of the noble Baroness
about the leaking and briefing that has been taking place over
the last few weeks. It was briefed that, for example, the Muslim
Council of Britain could be the sort of extremist organisation
that the Government must have nothing to do with. The MCB is the
UK’s largest Muslim umbrella group. Many of us know and respect
its first female secretary-general, the dynamic Zara Mohammed. It
is an umbrella group with more than 500 affiliated members,
including mosques, schools and charitable organisations. Are the
Government saying that they are to be labelled as possible
extremists? This can serve only to smear groups and individuals.
How will the Government address these concerns, in order to
counter fear and division? As we have heard, online extremism is
on the rise, but surely, smearing organisations and all those who
work within them or benefit from them is not the way to bring
about social cohesion.
says that his department will
establish a civil service centre of excellence. Who will these
people be and where will they be drawn from? Will there be
transparency? Will they include people who already have displayed
intolerant views, such as William Shawcross, whom the Secretary
of State describes as the author of the “brilliant” review of
Prevent. In 2012, he was quoted as saying:
“Europe and Islam is one of the greatest, most terrifying
problems of our future”.
It is no wonder that over 400 organisations refused to engage
with him on that Prevent review.
What evidence-based threshold will be applied by this new centre
of excellence, especially when compiling lists of organisations
and guidance? Will any of these organisations have the right to
appeal any decision? It is disappointing that the Secretary of
State seems to have ignored civil liberties groups. As we have
heard, three former Home Secretaries are against politicising
such an important issue. I would also like to know who was
consulted in drawing up this definition of extremism.
In the past few years, the Government have refused to recognise
or accept a definition of Islamophobia, despite it now being
widely adopted across civil society and by all other political
parties. They said that they would come up with their own
definition. In the past week, they have had problems in
condemning racism and misogyny in respect of . There was even a debate on
whether making such hateful remarks constituted racism. Yet they
are promoting this new definition of extremism with apparently
little reference to minority communities, who have seen a massive
increase in racism, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and other hate
crimes.
The respected race equality think tank, the Runnymede Trust,
described the definition as an “attack on civil society”. It went
on to say that it has
“bypassed parliamentary scrutiny and will likely shut down
organisations supporting people of colour, who are critical of
the government of the day … This definition governs what people
are thinking, rather than doing, and will likely silence those
who oppose the govt’s position, for example on pro-Palestinian
marches and critical race theory. Muslim groups and orgs
supporting people of colour will be targeted as a result”.
This is the perception outside, and I have been contacted by
numerous faith groups and other community groups who are
concerned that, instead of people being brought together, the
seeds of division are being sown.
Can the Minister please respond to the concerns I have raised?
Does she agree that we need a commitment to bring unity and not
division to our society? We certainly need more inter-faith
dialogue, not less.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Levelling Up, Housing & Communities () (Con)
I thank the noble Baronesses for their questions. I understand
that this is a sensitive issue, and I appreciate the co-operation
being shown here today. But as the Secretary of State, , said in his Oral Statement in
the other place last week, the UK is facing a rising threat of
extremism. The 7 October terrorist attacks in Israel, the
aftermath in Gaza and the domestic implications have sharpened
our focus on countering radicalisation.
My department has announced that it is publishing a new
definition of extremism, which we are discussing today, and a set
of cross-government engagement standards to be housed in a new
centre of excellence on counter-extremism. To date, the
Government’s approach to countering radicalisation has focused on
preventing people being drawn into terrorism. However, we have
not yet taken a comprehensive and strategic approach to
preventing a wider cohort of people being radicalised into
extremism. Hence, these are vital interventions at this
challenging time, and the Government must ensure that they have
the tools they need to tackle this ever-evolving threat. I really
am grateful for that cross-party support.
I can reassure the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady
Hussein-Ece, that the announcement is the culmination of a
concerted cross-government endeavour, bolstered by the expertise
of external agencies and practitioners. The ways in which
extremist agendas are pursued have evolved since extremism was
first defined by government in 2011. As such, government’s
approach must evolve, too.
The new definition of extremism seeks to limit the advancement of
extreme ideologies and ensure that open debate can take place
unfettered by those who seek to exploit our freedoms—or, indeed,
overturn them. The new definition is more specific, allowing us
to better target extremists in this changing landscape while
avoiding unnecessary overstep into public debate and the freedom
of expression. This has always been a tricky balance but, with
clear thresholds and thorough guidance, I hope that we can
support the first duty of government to keep citizens safe and
the country secure.
The definition will capture only those individuals, organisations
and groups that are driven by ideologies of hatred, violence or
intolerance and intend to negate or destroy our fundamental
rights, overturn or undermine our democracy, or intentionally
provide a platform for those that do. I appreciate that the
speakers agree with that premise. Importantly, as mentioned by
the noble Baronesses, the definition does not capture those who
advocate for democratic change to rights and freedoms and does
not seek to restrict lawful protest or debate.
Community engagement is a fundamental part of the work of UK
ministerial government departments. We are proud to engage with
groups and individuals from across the country, with charities
and community organisations and directly with local people. Our
external engagement can strengthen our democracy, our
policy-making and our society, and we agree with the Benches
opposite that nothing should weaken this legitimate engagement
with our communities. However, through the independent review of
Prevent, we know that, if best practice is not followed, the UK
Government’s engagement with communities and external groups can
inadvertently provide a platform, funding or legitimacy for
individuals, organisations or groups that oppose our shared
values. If we do not tackle this, this allows extremists of all
ideologies—this is not aimed at one part of society—to exert
greater influence and be legitimised and publicly emboldened.
To ensure that we maximise the many benefits of engagement and
minimise the risks, the definition is being published alongside a
set of community engagement principles that central government
departments will be expected to consider when undertaking
external engagement or providing funding. These will enable
officials to make carefully considered, risk-based judgments
about the individuals and groups with which they could or should
engage. Their implementation across government will ultimately
enhance and, I hope, broaden our external engagement
practices.
I can respond to concerns raised by the noble Baronesses about
scope. It is focused on central government and does not apply to
local authorities or public bodies. However, all local
authorities have a duty to ensure that public money is being
spent effectively and not wasted or misused and, as such, are
expected to undertake their own community engagement and due
diligence appropriately and responsibly. The extremism definition
is not a statutory definition and does not create new powers but
instead helps the Government and our partners to target existing
powers better. The definition and principles will apply to
engagement, including funding undertaken in England, Scotland and
Wales by UK Government ministerial departments. Engagement
undertaken in Northern Ireland is exempt due to the unique
political and historical circumstances, and the definition of
principles does not apply to the engagement undertaken by the
devolved Administrations themselves.
I turn to the processes that I was asked about with regard to the
centre of excellence. It is important that we tackle the threat
of domestic extremism, and we are setting up a counterextremism
centre of excellence, which will become a world-leading authority
on best practice, data and research in this field. The new centre
of excellence will be housed in the Department for Levelling Up,
Housing and Communities and will provide leadership for
departments’ operations and implementation of the definition. The
cross-government engagement principles and extremism-related due
diligence process will in time be the home to new
counterextremism assessment and analytical functions and
capabilities, as and when the budget and the staff are employed.
Since its inception, the team, many members of which have moved
over from the Home Office, has been undertaking community
engagement in each local authority to get to the heart of the
issues our country faces today and explore how we can support
these local authorities holistically. In response to the question
of who ultimately decides: as joint leader for countering
extremism, the DLUHC Secretary of State and the Home Secretary
will make the final decision on who will be added to the list.
This will be based on the recommendations made using the evidence
gathered and analysed by the subject experts.
I was asked whether there would be a right to appeal. During the
process of identifying these groups, they will have the
opportunity, before things are made public, to provide mitigating
evidence, which will then be analysed before a decision is taken.
Following publication on a list, if anyone believes our judgment
is wrong, as in any case where it is believed that the Government
have acted unreasonably, the option of judicial review is always
available. Indeed, DLUHC is finalising the process for reviewing
the inclusion of names of extremist organisations and groups on
the list so that they can come off it in appropriate
circumstances. For example, this could be based on a change of
position, such as an individual’s, an organisation’s or a group’s
efforts to refute or rescind any previously extremist behaviours.
We plan to appoint a new, independent anti-Muslim hatred adviser.
It is important to get this appointment right, and it is
currently going through due process. I hope to update your
Lordships very soon. I can confirm that an investigation has been
launched into the leaked information as of last week.
While the Government and their partners have worked tirelessly to
combat extremism through the updated Prevent and Contest
counterterrorism strategies, the Defending Democracy Taskforce
and the integrated review, the pervasiveness of extremist
ideologies in the aftermath of the 7 October attacks has brought
the need for further action into sharper focus. We are trying to
put that in place as part of, and accompanying, our broader
counterextremism strategy. I hope the Secretary of State will
make further announcements regarding this in the coming weeks. I
look forward to coming back to this Dispatch Box to update your
Lordships’ House imminently on what that strategy will be.
On the hate crime action plan, the Government do not intend to
publish a hate crime strategy. We keep our approach to tackling
hate crime under constant review, and we remain committed to
protecting all our communities from crime. We fund the national
online hate crime hub, a central capability designed to support
local police forces in dealing with online hate crime. As to
whether this will apply to online extremism more broadly,
assessing that online activity will be in scope of the definition
where the law allows.
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Hussein-Ece,
for their comments and questions on this sensitive issue. I look
forward to continued co-operation as we implement this across
government and further develop the counterextremism strategy over
the coming weeks and months.
6.48pm
(CB)
My Lords, I welcome this new definition, in particular its focus
on protecting our parliamentary democracy. I was pleased to be
consulted on it in my role as the Government’s independent
adviser on political violence and disruption. It was helpful to
hear the Minister set out the process for ensuring that
organisations deemed to be extreme and included on the list which
emerges have sufficient chance to engage and put their case.
It is worth reminding the House that it was a Labour Communities
Secretary who made the decision on non-engagement with the Muslim
Council of Britain in 2009, which has stayed in place for much of
the previous 14 to 15 years, on the basis that the then deputy
general secretary of that organisation endorsed a call by Hamas
for attacks on foreign troops, including British troops, so this
has not come out of the blue. Nevertheless, the process of who
ends up on the list is really important. Does the Minister have
an update on how long the Government anticipate that process
taking before a list can be published?
(Con)
We are just finalising the criteria regarding how this will be
measured, what the metrics are, and how the evidence will be
compiled and then decided. As and when that happens, we would
expect to complete this within weeks and certainly as quickly as
we possibly can.
of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the proposition that my enemy’s enemy is my friend is
probably one of the most wrong-headed and dangerous in politics.
I am proud that over the past few years, when the Jewish
community marched first against Mr Corbyn and more recently in
favour of and to support Israel, we have absolutely rejected the
far-right extremists trying to hijack our demonstrations because
they think we have a common opponent. That is a completely
wrong-headed and dangerous thing to do, because we all know that,
ultimately, all extremists want to take us to the same place: to
divide communities and to undermine our democratic process. Does
my noble friend the Minister therefore agree that what
fundamentally underpins this definition of extremism is a
distinction between those who want to work within our democratic
process, albeit perhaps to change it, and those who seek to
undermine the democratic process, which is the foundation of all
civilised debate and safe living for all communities in this
country?
(Con)
Absolutely. I totally agree with my noble friend; I am sure most
people in this House do as well. We are in a period of heightened
tensions. Anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hate crime levels are at
an all-time high. Flags, symbols and graffiti are all causing
division and stoking fear locally, and now is the time to tackle
this issue head on. The definition tries to ensure that it
focuses on extremism that is founded in hatred, violence or
intolerance, and which poses a threat to our rights and our
freedoms. It does not matter where it comes from: we need to
tackle it and try our best to stop it.
(Lab)
My Lords, I too believe that this is very important. Clearly it
is right that the Government look fully at the risk of extremism.
I worry about the definition and some potential unintended
consequences. I note the Minister said that organisations that
felt they were unfairly affected had recourse to judicial review.
Given that this Government have been chuntering about use of
judicial review, I am glad to see that they now think that it has
a positive benefit.
I want to ask the Minister about one point in the Statement
issued by her department, which talks about this work
complementing the Government’s updated Prevent guidance. I am
puzzled by the guidance issued last year, which lists socialism,
anti-fascism and anti-abortion on the Prevent list of terrorism
warning signs. A section on the left wing goes on to say:
“Two broad ideologies: socialism and communism. Each are united
by a set of grievance narratives which underline their
cause”.
I am not sure whether I call myself a socialist. Members of the
Labour Party probably would not describe me as a socialist and my
local branch definitely would not—it would find other ways to
describe me. However, that seems to show some of the risks of
Prevent making these quite alarming statements and, because of
what Mr Gove has said, their maybe being translated into the
extremism definition. I would be grateful if the Minister would
at least look at how this relationship will operate.
(Con)
I certainly will undertake to do that. The sole purpose of
bringing this under one umbrella is to ensure that all
departments treat this with the same lens. They will have the
same evidence- based methodology and the same basis for making
decisions, and we will then ensure that that is across all
departments. This is the method by which we will bring all that
together so that all departments say the same thing and treat
people equally.
(Non-Afl)
My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register of interests. The
New British Union describes itself as the fastest-growing far
right organisation. What criteria were used to determine that it
should not be included on the list? For those organisations that
are included on the list, if an individual says publicly that
they have left such an organisation, will the Government engage
with them immediately, or after a year or in five years’ time?
What timescale will the Government use after someone has been
directly connected with one of the five current organisations, or
however many it ends up being, for non-engagement? Is there a
specific timescale in which the Government will choose not to
meet, associate with and recognise individuals from those
organisations?
(Con)
I can answer part of the question, but the other part is yet to
be worked out in terms of the detailed processes. The Secretary
of State referred in the other House to the types of groups and
extremism that we are concerned about. This was not in any way an
exhaustive list and it certainly was not “the” list. The process
of making those assessments, following the evidence and
collecting all the data is ongoing. It has not been completed and
therefore there is no list. I will be able to share that with the
House as and when that work is completed.
On someone who has left an organisation, rejected the ideology
and now wants to be considered in a different light, I suspect
that will need to be on a case-by-case basis, and the evidence
and data will need to follow it. There will be experts in the
group who will be able to make that judgment. I suspect they have
not yet got far enough down the processes to determine the
timeline.
(CB)
My Lords, there have been examples, recently and in the past, of
Conservative politicians making unfounded allegations,
particularly against Muslims, that have resulted in the paying of
damages. Words have consequences, such as death threats, damage
to reputation, loss of livelihood and mental ill-health. This new
extremism definition could be abused to make false allegations
that inflict lasting damage. What safeguards will be put in place
to ensure that power and position are not abused?
I am also very worried about the safety of Muslim women. Last
Wednesday, a Muslim woman came to see me. On the eve of the
definition being released, she was subjected to hate crime on the
Tube on her way home. She has reported it to the police but most
Muslim women do not do so. I am really worried about the safety
of Muslim women. When will the Government start to engage with
Muslim women’s groups? How many have the Government engaged with?
I run the only national Muslim women’s organisation, so I declare
that interest. To date, we have had no engagement.
(Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her questions. I will commit to
replying in writing on how many of those groups the department
has engaged with. The Minister, my noble friend Lady Scott of
Bybrook, is responsible for that engagement with those faith
groups so I will ensure that we collate the information and write
to the noble Baroness.
If anybody uses inappropriate language it should be condemned and
called out immediately. I personally would feel comfortable doing
that. However, I will confirm that anybody who is an elected
representative will not be on the list.
(LD)
My Lords, I will make two points. First, I think there was an
overlap between some of the work that the Intelligence and
Security Committee has been doing about foreign interference in
British politics and the dangers this is trying to address. We
all know that internal politics in Pakistan spills over into
British cities, with Tehreek and others. There are close links
between some of our communities and political parties in
Pakistan; we need to watch that. I have done all my politics in
West Yorkshire, and I am certainly concerned at the extent to
which the growth of Hindu nationalism within India may also spill
over into British communities. We certainly need to be very
concerned about that; we have seen one or two instances
already.
I am even more concerned about the extent to which the rise of
extremely well-funded anti-democratic right-wing groups within
the United States might spill over into this country, with money
from those right-wing organisations trying to influence British
politics. We have just seen a former leader of the Conservative
Party attending a very right-wing conference in Washington,
standing with people whose loyalty to democratic principles is
extremely doubtful, and not being sent into suspension by the
Conservative Party. That worries me considerably, and we all need
to think about it. On a cross-party basis, we need to think about
how we conduct our democratic debate.
That leads to my second point, which is that if one looks at
opinion surveys, one sees that we face a public in Britain who
are now more disillusioned with our parliamentary democracy than
we have seen in our lifetimes. That breeds extremism,
particularly among those who are unskilled or unemployed, or who
have done badly in school. That is not entirely new; in the first
election I fought, in Huddersfield in 1970, I had a National
Front candidate against me, and it made for a very nasty campaign
on occasions. We are well aware that unless we as democratic
politicians make sure that we mind our language as we compete
with each other in the forthcoming election, and do something to
improve the quality of our democracy and encourage greater
participation in it—membership of all political parties has gone
down over the last 20 years—we will leave the bed out of which
extremism grows there for it to grow. That is a problem which,
before and after the election, all of us in all parties need to
address.
(Con)
I acknowledge the noble Lord’s comments and recognise many of
them. For me, there is no boundary as to where this goes. If
somebody is practising extremism that matches the definition—that
it is founded in “violence, hatred or intolerance” and poses that
threat to our “rights or freedoms”, or our liberal democratic
positions that uphold them—they need to be called out. It does
not matter whether they are far left or far right, or another
other colour or description you would give in between. DLUHC has
worked with the Home Office and other government departments,
including arm’s-length bodies, agencies and practitioners
confronting extremism in our country, as part of this review, so
anybody who has had any role in doing this has come together to
try to get this definition across the line and to now support the
strategy, which will be made public in the next few weeks.
Everyone has a right to freedom of expression. Freedom of speech
is a fundamental right that we will always protect in this
country, but obviously there are limitations to that if it does
damage to others. The definition does not single out single
subjects as inherently extremist, but calls for that careful
assessment of evidence in relation to any individual organisation
or group. In each case, the question is whether they are taking
action to advance or promote that ideology with the “violence,
hatred or intolerance” in mind. It is very specific, but it is
likely to cover a broad swathe from all different parts of the
spectrum. I reassure the noble Lord that the expert group will
look at this in detail, and will apply the same metrics across
the board.
(Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the
reassurances she has given. In our time in the European
Parliament, when we served together, I admired my noble friend
for her moderate and well-balanced views. But the overwhelming
perception of Muslim communities at the moment is that this
latest statement by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up is a
way to silence them—to stop public discourse. It is extremely
worrying. I cannot stress enough just how upset people are; there
has to be a way to allay those fears.
Organisations have been named publicly; what evidence has there
been to deem them extremist? Would that evidence stand up in a
court of law? Where does it all end? If I stand here one day and
say, “I believe that there should be an immediate ceasefire in
Gaza, and the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and East
Jerusalem should be lifted, in a process towards peace and mutual
recognition”, and if some people feel that to be extremist in
some way, how does that impact any kind of public discourse? I
have grave concerns about the way this has been put out and
articulated, and the communities that it will impact the
most.
(Con)
I agree with my noble friend that those documents being leaked is
really unfortunate, and has had some damaging effects. I assure
the House that the list does not currently exist; the evidence
and data are being compiled, and therefore an assessment will be
made in due course. There is no list at this point in time. As
and when it is appropriate, I will come back and present that
context to your Lordships’ House.
I have heard the messaging that the Muslim community is finding
this difficult. The way in which it has come out in the media has
caused some issues. But it is really important for me to say at
the Dispatch Box that the Muslim community makes an enormous
contribution to British society, and has done so for centuries.
Islam is a religion observed peacefully by over a billion people
worldwide; we need to acknowledge that there is a huge difference
between those who practise Islam and Islamist extremists.
Therefore, we need to differentiate between them.
Rightly, the Prime Minister has made it clear that we stand for
British Muslim communities; we maybe need to accelerate and
emphasise that a little more. Some of that will be by working
with those Muslim communities and, indeed, in the support we give
to some of those Muslim groups. We certainly need to encourage
most of those groups to come forward to work with us to counter
extremism. I think this gives us the ability to work with a
broader, more diverse group of individuals, to try to see whether
we can make a bigger difference. I thank the noble Baroness for
the question.
(LD)
I just think it is important that the record is straight; I was
very taken with what the noble Lord, , said about the length of time.
An organisation that in the past had somebody associated with it,
who is no longer there, continues to be smeared. I mention this
because the noble Lord, , mentioned a name—
(CB)
I do not think I smeared them.
(LD)
The noble Lord did mention a name—
(CB)
No, I did not, and I did not smear anyone. I ask the noble
Baroness to please be careful with the language she uses.
(LD)
I am on my feet speaking; I would like to finish, if the noble
Lord does not mind. An organisation is smeared if it is
continually associated with somebody who has not been involved
for over a decade. It is really important we have that
distinction. I urge the Minister to look into that closely. That
is being said; it was said here about somebody who was involved,
who supported Hamas 10 years ago, and it is not fair to continue
that in the present day, to keep that on the record.
(Con)
I confirm that the list has not yet been generated. As and when
it is, I expect it to be on current, up-to-date data and
evidence. I can therefore reassure the noble Baroness that that
is what I will be looking for.
|
