Lords Chamber

Wednesday 18th March 2026

(began 2 hours, 40 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
15:08
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:27
15:28
None Portrait Oral questions: Supporting councils to regenerate struggling high streets and towns
-

Third, Oral Question Baroness Scott of Bybrook. leave to ask the question. Standing in my name on the Order Paper.
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:41
15:42
15:43
15:44
15:44
15:45
15:45
15:46
15:46
15:47
15:48
15:48
15:49
15:51
15:52
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
particularly relevant to Report stage today. This is intended to help us make progress and to help us make progress and to proceed to votes first. And everyone's favourite line is that the House is resolved, that the House is resolved, that speeches should be shorter, second and important today, as its report, the companion states that arguments the companion states that arguments fully deployed at Committee stage should not be repeated at length at should not be repeated at length at report. Third, I'll remind your Lordships House that whilst interventions are in accordance with the customs of the House, they should be brief questions for clarification.

Lengthy and frequent interventions should not be made. Finally, my Lords, some of the topics we are discussing today are emotive and very important to many noble Lords. As my noble friend the Chief Whip has reminded the House frequently, it is in the best traditions of the House that these debates are conducted with courtesy and respect.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

After clause 182, amendment 400 and 9FA Lord Pack not moved, not and 9FA Lord Pack not moved, not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

moved in clause 183 amendment 409 G Baroness Doocey. My Lords, I rise to move amendment 409.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 409. G and to speak to. Amendment. 417. A amendment 409.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment. 417. A amendment 409. G would ensure that before a court imposes a youth diversion order, it is clear evidence of any alternative interventions that have been tried or considered, why they failed and what consultation took place with the child and with the relevant agencies. The point of this amendment is to make sure there is proper multi-agency input, and that these new orders are used only when they are genuinely appropriate. It will also help the court judge whether the order order is proportionate and whether the necessity test has truly been met.

The amendment is designed to make them more effective by showing clearly why other interventions
15:54
Baroness Doocey Portrait Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
have not worked. Early consultation will mean fewer orders being rejected, less wasted court time rejected, less wasted court time and conditions that are practical and linked to the services and linked to the services available locally. Crucially, my Lords, this amendment learns the lessons of the Southport case. lessons of the Southport case. There, a failure to share information meant decision makers were left without a full picture of were left without a full picture of the young person's background. That led to an ineffective referral order in 2021, three years before the tragedy occurred.

This amendment would help stop such failures from happening again by requiring all relevant information to be brought together before a single decision maker, it ensures that multiple referrals and early warning signs are not missed. We know that proper multi-agency working involving police, youth offending teams, social services and the voluntary sector produces more reliable risk assessments and helps to prevent serious harm. My amendment would embed that joined up approach. It also encourages consultation beyond statutory agencies, extending it to parents, parents and carers where appropriate.

In the Southport case, the failure to consult the perpetrator's parents was another missed opportunity. This amendment would help ensure that those closest to the child are properly involved. From the start. My Lords Amendment 417A addresses another crucial issue data. The Independent Commission on UK Counter-Terrorism law, Policy and Practice in its 2025 report, made it clear that effective Counter-radicalisation work depends on better data, especially where children and young people are concerned. This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish annual data on the use and impact of youth diversion orders and related powers showing breach rates, the type of prohibitions and requirements imposed and data about protected characteristics.

Only with that transparency can we see whether these orders are truly helping to divert young people from custody, or whether they're having unintended consequences for certain groups? We already know that a strikingly high proportion of counter-terrorism referrals involve autistic children, not because they're more likely to be radicalised, but because their intense interests can be misunderstood. These children are also especially vulnerable to grooming. I want to place on record my thanks to justice for the excellent briefings and invaluable work in shaping this amendment, and to add my support to the related proposals tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.

My Lords, the tragic lessons of Southport show that interventions must be tailored carefully to the facts of each case. Amendment 409 G would strengthen public protection by making sure judicial decisions are based on the fullest possible understanding of a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

child's circumstances. I beg to move. Amendment proposed clause 183,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause 183, page 235, line three. At end, insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshalled List. My Lords, before I actually speak to my amendment and those and of and the others in this group, I would just like to say, as the
15:58
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
green peers are not part of the usual channels, we were not able to give our views on the fact that this very important piece of legislation is being bullied through this House by the government. It is absolutely outrageous that we do not have another day for report, and I do hold both members of the front bench accountable for this. It is not acceptable. This is no way to make good law when we're going to be very tired in the later hours and possibly in the early hours.

However, group one my amendments 409H and 409J on youth diversion orders are supported by a wide range of organisations including the Alliance for Youth Justice, the centre for Justice Innovation, Emilie Eagle, the National Youth Advocacy Service, Sheffield Hallam University inquest, the Children's Rights Alliance for England, Just for Kids law and the Runnymede Trust. That's quite a lot of very experienced organisations to support these amendments. Their collective expertise in youth justice, children's rights and legal practice adds considerable weight to the concerns that underpin.

There are broader and very serious questions about the suitability of youth diversion orders themselves. The amendment 409 G in the name of the noble Baroness Doocey, rightly asks whether a youth diversion order is necessary in the first place. This amendment addresses the equally important question of what happens next. It aims to take a practical approach to work with what we have in the bill. If such orders are to be introduced, then the framework governing them must be rooted in what we know actually works for children.

As currently drafted, clause 185 gives courts extremely broad discretion to impose conditions without any clear duty to consider whether those requirements are suitable or achievable. In practice, this amendment intends to address that gap. Proposed new subsection four A would require courts to consider evidence of suitability, taking into account the child's age, maturity and individual circumstances. It would require consideration of whether conditions are practically available, whether they can realistically be enforced and whether multiple requirements are compatible with one another.

This reflects what evidence from youth justice practice already tells us. Evaluation of diversion programs, including work by Suffolk Youth Offending Service, shows clearly that outcomes improve when conditions are tailored to the individual child, when they are realistically enforceable, and when they do not interfere with education or access to support services. Without that, there is an obvious risk that children are being set up to fail, and when failure leads to breach and a breach is a criminal offence, we aren't diverting children from the justice system, we're actually drawing them further into it.

Proposed new subsection four B reinforces another essential principle that orders should not disrupt education, health appointments or support services. This is based on the fact that there are factors that help prevent harm and reduce re-offending. Undermining them could be potentially damaging. The amendment also introduces a requirement that the terms of the order are explained in language the child can understand. Again, this is strongly supported by evidence. Studies of diversion programs show that children are far more likely to engage when they understand what is required of them, and why.

Youth offending teams that take time to explain decisions in accessible language achieve significantly better outcomes. By contrast, many children struggle to recall or understand formal processes. As 110 year old boy said for a formal warning, I forgot it straight away. This issue is particularly acute with children with additional needs. Evidence suggests that a significant proportion of children in the youth justice system have speech, language and communication difficulties, and many have special educational needs or mental health challenges. Research presented to the All party parliamentary Group for children highlights how such difficulties can affect a child's ability to understand instructions, regulate behaviour and engage with processes.

Crucially, many of these children were not asked for clarification because they simply don't understand what they've heard. They may appear compliant but in reality be confused and unsupported. If we don't take that into account, then we risk further criminalising vulnerability. Taken together, these amendments introduce basic and evidence based safeguards. They're about ensuring that youth diversion orders, if they are to exist, are tailored, workable and fair to the child. I. I do hope that noble Lady do c does.

Does move a vote on this, because I will support it very strongly and I would like to move a vote on mine as well. But obviously the House is going to be very tired by the end of this bill and so I won't, she said bitterly.
16:03
16:03
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
Can I thank noble Lords for their amendments in this group? And their amendments in this group? And can I begin by saying that we accept the noble Order Minister's amendments, which seem entirely reasonable? Turning to the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I appreciate the sentiments behind them. We do, however, believe that they are somewhat misguided. Youth diversion orders, whatever 1st May think of them, will be implemented as a means to deal with some of the most serious offences by people of the age of criminal responsibility.

We should not be making concessions to people who have or are intending to commit terrorism offences, and we believe that engaging in these acts forfeits the right to the conditions of her amendment. 409 H as a primary consideration. Similarly, with regards to the Baroness Jay. Amendment 409 J. I entirely understand and acknowledge the issue she is trying to grapple with. Our position, however, is simple. Court proceedings should be carried out in the language of the land. That said, the government does offer translation services, and I do ask the noble Lord to Minister to set out measures that are already in place to ensure offenders understand orders that are made by the courts.

My Lords, turning to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness Lady Ducey, youth diversion orders must be underpinned by the principle of proportionality. Amendment 417A would serve to ensure that they are being used in this expected manner. We particularly support the intention behind amendment 409 G. Youth diversion orders will be a serious step to take and therefore ensuring that multi-agency evidence backs up. The decision to issue an order is incredibly important. Similarly, sharing the data, the sharing of data with regard to terrorists and terrorism networks is becoming an increasingly urgent need.

Any step that improves the efficiency of the sourcing and sharing of information between authorities is welcome. And so we also support this amendment. I look forward to hearing the minister's response.
16:06
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
And I'm grateful to the noble Lady Baroness Doocey, and for the noble Lady Jones for their noble Lady Jones for their amendments in relation to the Youth Diversion Orders, amendment 409 G in the name of Baroness Doocey, would require the courts to be provided with details of previous interventions, both considered and imposed, and to set out consultation undertaken with other agencies. Amendment 409 H in the name of Baroness Shields, would amend clause 185, which deals with measures which may be imposed by youth diversion, order and amendment 409 J again, in the name of the Baroness Jones, would require a youth diversion order to be issued to the respondents in simple terms, to ensure they understand what is being asked of them.

I understand the sentiment behind the orders, but I hope I can explain why the government can't accept them. Can I say at the beginning and at the outset that in response to the noble Lady, Baroness Jones, we have had a lot of debate on this bill and we will continue to have some more debate, undoubtedly in ping pong. And I thank the noble Lord Pannick for his his comments. We're trying to do our best and I'm happy if colleagues want to.

We can have votes very speedily tonight. If people put their arguments succinctly and the government responds succinctly, which I will try and do. May I just say that in relation to the points on the amendments today, the Home Office is currently drafting statutory guidance which will, I hope, help the points raised by the noble Baroness. That will be by the negative procedure that will be produced as soon as possible, and it will include further details on the circumstances for youth diversion orders in relation to amendments 409 G and 409 H.

The legislation already makes clear that the court must consider the youth diversion order necessary for the purposes of protecting the public from the risk of terrorism or serious harm. Clause 185 clarifies that this test applies to each individual measure imposed by the order, and as part of that, the court must also consider proportionality, which I think is is key in relation to the second part of the amendment. 409 H, clause 185 also already ensures there are safeguards for the really important points that the noble Baroness have made, which is to ensure that educational commitments, an individual's work and the duplication is avoided with requirements imposed by other orders.

There is similar safeguards in other similar civil orders, and I'll take, if I may, the point on translation services, a way that was made by the noble Lord and refer to him, perhaps even later in the debate, but certainly in writing afterwards, the amendment 409 J. I recognise the importance of ensuring the respondent understands the detail of the order imposed upon them. That's absolutely vital, and that will be a consideration for Youth Offending Teams already. Amendment 417A would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on youth diversion orders, and the provisions in this Bill already expand the statutory limit for the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation to include youth diversion orders.

In practice, this will mean that youth diversion orders will be considered as part of the annual reports of the independent reviewer, and I hope again this helps the House. In addition, the Home Office does provide an annual report to Parliament on the use and oversight of disruptive counter-terrorism powers, and I want to give a commitment that I will review whether or not we should include reporting on youth diversion orders. As part of this, I'm grateful for the support of the noble Cameron of Lochiel for the government's amendments.

They are technical amendments which clarify the relevant court in clause 186, which deals with notification requirements and clause 193, which deals with applications to vary a youth diversion order taken together amendments 413 and 414 update the route of appeal for both the applicant and the respondent of a Youth Diversion Order. Current drafting includes a route for further appeal to the Court of Appeal in England and Wales, and to align the appeal routes with other similar civil orders. This amendment removes the route to the Court of Appeal.

This allows established appeal routes to be applied. The applicant or defendant will be able to appeal the youth diversion order made in the Magistrate's Court to the High Court by way of case stated or Crown Court, with an onward appeal allowed by way of case stated to the High Court. They are technical amendments and I hope that they will help clarify the purpose of the proposals in the government's name. I would just say finally, therefore, then to the noble Lady Ducey in particular, that I hope with those assurances she does withdraw her amendment, but I realise that if she wishes to push it, then I advise my noble friends to vote against it.
16:11
16:12
None Portrait Division
-

The question is that amendment 409 be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, content, content, opinion will say, content, content, content, content, content. The question will be decided by division. I will advise the House division. I will advise the House when voting is open. Order. Voting when voting is open. Order. Voting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Once Once more.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment 409 be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, content contrary, opinion will say, content contrary, not content. Not content. Contents will go to the right by the bar. The not content to the left by the bar. Oh, to the right. By the throne. The not content left by the You'll You'll see. 409 409 G 409 G be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Lord Sahota

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Sahota contents. Lord Sahota contents. 225 Lord Sahota contents. 225 not Amendment. Amendment. 409 Amendment. 409 H Amendment. 409 H Baroness Amendment. 409 H Baroness Jones Amendment. 409 H Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb not moved. Amendment 409 J Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb not moved Lords. It may be for the convenience of the House of amendments 410 to 417 a moved formerly en bloc Lord Hanson of Flint.

The question is that amendments 410 to 417 be agreed to En bloc. As many of that opinion will say, content, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 417 a Baroness Doocey not moved, not Baroness Doocey not moved, not moved after clause 201, amendment 418. Baroness Foster of Agra. Drums.
16:24
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee Portrait Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 418 and to try and explain the rationale for the explain the rationale for the changes I've made since Committee stage, and I want to thank the noble Lord Polak and the noble Lady Baroness Ludford for adding their names in support of the amendment. I declare I am an office holder in the APPG for Counter Extremism, a member of the APPG for Terrorism and Security and a victim of terrorism. So for 20 years we've had a criminal offence of glorification of terrorism.

However, the current section one is a very high bar to meet for prosecution as the person making the statement of glorification has to intend that a person hearing the statement would be encouraged to emulate the terrorism being glorified. And after the debate at Committee stage, I sought to narrow the wording of my amendment to deal with the to deal with current prescribed organisations and noble Lords may remember that there was a concern as the amendment was drafted for Committee stage, that it may capture some historic features that none of us would have seen today as glorification of terrorism in today's world.

So in seeking to narrow the scope, however, the noble Lord, the Minister pointed out in a letter to me when I shared my change of amendment, that I may now be excluding glorification of those terrorists acting on their own behalf, those not advocating or acting on behalf of a proscribed organisation such as the Manchester bomber. And obviously I wouldn't want that to be the case. So I've worked with the wonderfully patient staff in the public bill office to try and deal with the issues raised by the Minister.

So what is before the House today, I hope captures my amendment as put forward a Committee stage, but also deals with the issue of so-called lone wolf terrorists or their supporters calling for others to emulate their activities. And as I said, I do want to thank the Bill office for all of their assistance in dealing with these issues and indeed, the noble Lord, the Minister, for bringing the issue to my attention, just to remind noble Lords, the reason for me pushing this amendment is really fourfold.

Firstly, defeating terrorism is not just about militarily defeating the terrorists or the organisation, but also not allowing the narrative of those terrorists to be justified. Secondly, there have been no prosecutions in Northern Ireland under the current section one and very few in England and Wales. Despite the growing glorification of terrorism and terrorists. So we need to enable the police and the prosecutors to deal with those who seek to glorify terrorists. And I hope that this amendment is helpful in that regard.

Thirdly, as I indicated at the start of my speech, I am an office holder in the APPG on counter Extremism. And if we do not amend the law as the amendment seeks to do, then I really do fear for the continued glorification of terrorism and the fact that that will radicalise and need more of our young people into terrorism present. There's a lack of legislation to capture extremism, but if we allow the glorification of terrorism to continue unabated, extremism will grow in our society.

And we know all of the problems that brings for our society. My Lords, in the recent report, time to act from the APPG on Counter Extremism, it was found that 1 in 5 voters say the political violence in the UK is acceptable. In some conditions. We should all be shocked by that statistic, but unfortunately it comes from the normalisation of terrorism. In a further report this time, and actually just published this week from the Union of Jewish Students, we are given clear evidence of what happens when glorification of terrorism is allowed to happen unchecked.

The report found that glorification of terrorism is prevalent and unpunished. Our research has found that student groups have explicitly called for violence against Jews, even justifying the terrorist attack at Bondi Beach in December 2025, 49% of those students spoken to have heard slogans or chants glorifying Hamas, Hezbollah or other prescribed groups on campus, and 47% have witnessed justification of the October 7th attacks, rising to 77%. Among those who encounter Israel Palestine protests regularly. My Lord, we must act.

We have been given clear evidence of the impact of the glorification of terrorism, particularly on our young people, and therefore we must deal with it because fourthly and finally, what sort of society do we want to live in? Do we want to allow the continued glorification of terrorism and all the inherent problems that will bring? Or do we want to send a signal from Parliament that terrorism is, was, and always will be wrong? Just yesterday, my Lords, I was shocked and I shouldn't be shocked because unfortunately it has become the norm in Yuri.

At a council run Saint Patrick's Day parade, parents were buying balaclavas and scarves for their young children, which had IRA slogans on them. I have to say, my Lords, the impact on our young people is huge and that's what I'm concerned about. You may say don't live in the past, etc. etc. and sometimes when I raise the issue of glorification of terrorism, the noble Lord, the Minister will say, yes, it was. Everything that happened in the past was terrible. This is not about the past.

This is about the future, and it's about our young people. And we need to stop the harmful normalisation of terrorism. And this new amendment, I think, goes some way in doing just that, because terrorism is not never justified. It causes mistrust between communities, takes away lives and causes devastating devastation for so many people. And my Lords, I hope, given that I have listened to the concerns that have been raised in committee and indeed from the noble Lord, the Minister himself, that the House will see fit to back my amendment, I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move. My proposed after clause 201.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My proposed after clause 201. Insert the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He was very pleased to support Baroness Prosser and added my name to this amendment. The purpose, as to this amendment. The purpose, as I understand it, of the amendment is pretty straightforward. It seeks to remove that current requirement to remove that current requirement in section one of the Terrorism Act 2006 that for a statement glorifying terrorism to be criminal, prosecutors must also prove that the speaker intended to encourage
16:31
Lord Polak Portrait Lord Polak (Conservative)
-
-
others to emulate the act. In practice, this current requirement creates a significant evidential barrier. Under the current law, it is not enough that someone praises terrorist violence, celebrates terrorist violence, celebrates terrorist attacks or glorifies terrorist organisation. Prosecutors must go further and demonstrate must go further and demonstrate that the individual intended their words to encourage others to copy those acts and as a result, individuals can glorify terrorism while carefully avoiding an explicit call for imitation remaining technically within the law.

So we know that extremist propagandists are acutely aware of these legal boundaries. They deliberately operate at the margins of the law, rather than issuing explicit instructions. They rely on suggestion, admiration and narrative. They glorify past attacks. They elevate perpetrators as heroes or martyrs, and they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Celebrate organisations that Parliament has already determined must be prescribed because of their must be prescribed because of their threat. The threat they pose and such messaging, my Lords, may not always contain an explicit always contain an explicit instruction to copy the act, but it nonetheless plays a powerful role in the radicalisation process. It legitimises, it fuels extremist ideology, and it contributes to an ideology, and it contributes to an environment in which a violent extremism becomes normalised. In many cases, my Lords, Parliament has already taken steps of proscribing certain organisations as terror groups.

The decision reflects a clear judgement that those organisations pose such a grave threat that supporting them must be prohibited. It's therefore follows that publicly praising or glorifying the acts of such organisations should also fall into the scope of criminal law, even where the speaker, as I've said, avoids explicit call for imitation. And this amendment simply aligns the legislation with that principle. And I think it's also important to be clear that the amendment. What the amendment does not do, it does not criminalise legitimate debate, historical discussion or academic analysis of terrorism, nor does it undermine the fundamental protections of freedom of expression that are central to our democratic society.

Instead, it targets the deliberate glorification of terrorist organisations and their acts of violence, which extremist actors use to spread propaganda and influence vulnerable audiences. My Lords, extremist propaganda has evolved significantly since the original legislation was drafted. Radicalisation today often occurs through narratives that glorify past attacks and portray terrorists as heroes, rather than through direct instructions to commit violence. If the law is ineffective, it must reflect that reality. Removing the emulation requirement would close a loophole in the law.

Align our legislation with the realities of modern extremist propaganda, and strengthen the ability of prosecutors to act against those who glorify terrorism while hiding behind technicalities. Sending an unequivocal message that the celebration of terrorist violence has no place in our society. So, my Lords, I believe this amendment represents a sensible, proportionate and necessary improvement in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

existing legislation and I hope colleagues will support it. I have.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have. As I usually do, for the concerns of the noble Baroness Foster, but I would make two short Foster, but I would make two short points. First, by removing the emulation requirement inserted, I emulation requirement inserted, I might say very deliberately. In 2006, this amendment would criminalise the utterance of criminalise the utterance of unpleasant viewpoints without regard to whether or not they have
16:35
16:36
Lord Weir of Ballyholme Portrait Lord Weir of Ballyholme (Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
I rise to. >> Support the amendment. Standing in the name. >> Of my noble friend, Baroness Foster, and others, and in doing so, Foster, and others, and in doing so, I think it is right that we do look to close the loophole. And I would say that I think we do need to actually look at how terrorists operate in the real world. And I think the loophole that is there at present is one which suggests that the current legislation, in its current wording is not quite fit for purpose.

It doesn't serve that. I would agree as well that I think the refinements that have been made between Committee stage and Report stage are useful. First of all, I think it doesn't, and I disagree that this in any way restricts freedom of speech. I think historic debate is something that is to be valued. I don't believe this does in any way restrict that. It focuses in on the contemporary situation. Secondly, I think it is important that the position is covered.

As we've seen, unfortunately, more instances of the so-called lone wolf people who want to effectively wear the badge of a terrorist organisation that may or may not be directly connected with that organisation. But we have seen whether it is in Manchester or Sydney in recent days, the horrific situation of a radicalised either individual or group of individuals perpetrating that. And it was right that that covers it as well. But there are two principal reasons why I support this and why I think it is necessary.

The first, and arguably the lesser of the two, is dealing with the present. Now, unlike Baroness Foster and probably like most members of this House, I have not been a victim of terrorism. I have not had a family member who's been a victim of terrorism. And I think for all of us who are in that position, we can be very thankful for that. But where we see people eulogising past terrorist actions for their own purposes of drawing people into their organisations or their way of thinking, it is deeply hurtful to the victims and relatives of those.

And in that sense, whether that is in relation to a terrorist atrocity which took place in Northern Ireland, whether this is the Manchester Arena bombing or the seven over seven attacks, and the presentation of those who perpetrated these as some form of righteous martyr, or indeed the purveyor of. There is no alternative that is deeply hurtful to the living relatives of the victims of those. And I think that if there was that reason alone, I think that would be sufficient to make this change.

But I think the bigger reason is actually looking to the future. And this is where I think we need to get real as regards terrorism. For terrorist organisations to operate, it is not some closed cell of a small group of people who simply never change. And over a period of time wither on the vine as time passes by. For any terrorist group to be continue on in its activities, it requires the influx of new blood. Time and time again and one of the things that I find deeply disturbing is there are a number of young people who are naive and are drawn in.

They are not people who in day one, are simply handed a gun or a bomb and told to go out and take that. They are drawn in bit by bit the idea that terrorist organisations, the way that they operate, will be to gradually indoctrinate for the dangerous ideology and even more perverse methodology, gradually to draw those those young people in. And in doing so, getting those people addicted to their methods. Past terrorism becomes effectively the gateway drug because many young people, if we were to mention, for example, the seven over seven attacks, young people have no memory of that.

It was before they were born. They don't see the consequences, the hurt that is caused directly to those families, the evil that is done in society, it becomes a much easier sell for terrorist organisations to draw people in on that basis, and to present those who carried out those hideous attacks as being some form of martyr or indeed role model for the future. And to that extent, I don't care whether this we're talking about Northern Ireland based terrorism, whether it is the extremism of those who carry out violence on behalf of some Islamic extremist view, whether it is far right terrorism or whether indeed it is a terrorist group that is effectively a front organisation for some foreign power.

The reality is we judge terrorism not by its motivation, but by its words and its actions, and there is a real danger of young people being radicalised and being drawn in, and the presentation of the evils of the past as as potential martyrs is something that is the case. And the argument will go well, if, for example, it is that we needed to create a united Ireland by violence 40 years ago, and if it was right, then, well, surely it must be right now.

If white supremacism was right 30 years ago, it is right now. If
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page