Southport Attack

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble and learned Lord speaks wise words. He will also note that Justice Goose indicated in his sentencing that it was likely to be a whole-life term, even though he could give only a 52-year sentence. The perpetrator will not be considered for any form of parole, at any stage, until he is 70; he is currently 18. That is a severe sentence, for which I am grateful for the work of Justice Goose and the judiciary in dealing with this difficult case in a sensitive way.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, on the Statement’s points on contempt of court, will the Minister comment on the CPS’s refusal to release full background details about Rudakubana, even after his guilty plea? This led the Crime Reporters Association to note

“a worrying pattern whereby forces wanting to provide information to the press have been instructed to stay silent”.

I raise this because I want to know what the Minister thinks about the information vacuum that followed the incident. Yes, some bad-faith players stirred the pot, but most of the people who were speculating and asking questions about, say, terrorism were parents who were just sickened by the carnage of those little girls, and I think felt resentful, frankly, at being called out as either far-right or somehow the problem themselves. Can we have more openness and information, not less?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government have tried to be as open as possible at every stage of this process, which is why we made Statements to the House of Commons when the incident occurred, on sentencing and now. I hope the noble Baroness will recognise that the Government have a duty also to make sure that information does not prejudice a trial and/or a sentencing result, even after a guilty plea.

If information that the Government held, or were party to, or had already prepared to begin to promote ideas that we are acting on now, had been put into the public domain at a time when the Government either became aware of that information or acted upon it, we may have had a situation whereby a trial would not have been a fair and open trial; a conviction may not have happened in the way it has happened; and, even after the guilty plea, which the Government were not expecting on that day, we may have had the sentence subject to potential appeals because of anything the Government had said.

Certainly, the Government’s role is to now have an inquiry, for all the reasons I have mentioned, and to look at all the issues that noble Lords and noble Baronesses have raised today. But the Government also have a responsibility to make sure that members of the judiciary fulfil their job appropriately.

Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness had a conversation with me, both in this Chamber and outside. She will know that there are occasions when Ministers can absorb views but cannot necessarily give definitive answers, because policy is developed outside of just the discussions in this House and in government as a whole. I hope she will welcome that one of the policy initiatives in the second Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary was the collection of data—the very point she raised with me before we made that announcement. I could not give her assurances then because we had not made the announcement; now we have. That data will be collected by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. If it shows matters that need to be addressed, they will be addressed, to try to reduce this curse.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the culture of denial and cover-up that has led to this scandal has over recent years often happened by attacking people’s tone. Can the Minister comment on the row in Wales, where, last week, the Presiding Officer of the Senedd denied that Wales had a grooming gangs problem and accused Darren Millar, who raised it, of being overly graphic and using the wrong tone when describing one girl’s ordeal, leading to that victim saying that she feels her experience was downplayed? Surely tone is not the problem at all—though the Minister started off by saying that it was. Can the Minister explain how five local inquiries can deal with ongoing problems in at least 50 towns in the UK and why witnesses cannot be compelled to attend? It feels inadequate, and that is what many victims are saying.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am responsible for many things in this department but I am not responsible for the comments of the Senedd Presiding Officer or any spat that they may have had with the leader of the Conservative Party in Wales in the Senedd. That is a matter for them. I can say that tone is important. I have tried to have an inclusive tone in this House in response to the recommendations. I put down my disappointment at the initial comments and tone of the Front Bench of His Majesty’s Opposition, which, in my view, tried to politicise what should be a contribution from all parties and none in this House to implement the recommendations of the IICSA report.

The noble Baroness mentioned the five authorities we have looked at. Those are the five where there have been reports to date. We are doing what I have been asked to do by Members of this House, which is to see whether all recommendations have been implemented to date. I have been asked by Members to look at ethnicity and other issues around who is undertaking this, which is why we have asked the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, a Member of this House, to do a very quick deep-dive audit of what is happening. We are trying to address that. On top of that, we are still trying to get to the key point: what do we do about the 17 recommendations that the previous Government did nothing about? That is what I am trying to focus on today. I will take any contribution from any part of this House to set a tone to deliver on those recommendations.

Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Viscount must have read my notes, because I agree with him fully.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, can the Minister explain why the Government are presenting this as an either/or issue? I do not get it. Yes, we should implement Professor Jay’s proposals—great action—but the reason why victims are demanding a specific inquiry looking at the Pakistani heritage grooming gangs is—

[A noble Lord]

Question.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

What do the Government think about the fact that state agencies knew about the industrial rape of girls who were considered to be white trash? Social workers, teachers and police officers looked the other way. That is what we need an inquiry into. It is a specific problem; we cannot just say that there was “child sex abuse”. As for those who say that this is a political football, when I raised in this House the Telford report, people tut-tutted and shouted, “Shameful”—and they meant me, not the rapists. This has been made a political football by others. There is a specific issue here—can the Government address it and respond to the Jay inquiry?

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it seems appropriate that we are discussing the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill today, on the 10th anniversary of the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris. Armed with Kalashnikovs, two Islamists, enraged by the satirical magazine’s depiction of the Prophet Muhammad, stormed into a workplace and murdered 12. There was a memorial protest at Trafalgar Square this morning: well done to the organisers, OurFight.uk, and all attendees, because it is important that we do not forget.

Ten years ago, “Je suis Charlie” rang out as an international call to action in defence of the Enlightenment principle that no idea, belief or figure is beyond scrutiny or satire. We were united then against the culture of fear that Islamist terrorism was trying to impose on free speech and a free society. Sadly, within months, too many liberal apologists in the arts, literature and media started to argue that the cartoonists had been a bit too offensive to Muslims, and that perhaps the staff were asking for trouble. Since then, terrorist atrocities have become too normalised in European cities, in my opinion.

I am all for any measures that tackle terrorism head-on, but I have concerns about this particular legislation. I have heard the message to this House from Dan Jarvis, Minister of State at the Home Office, who, to quote him, gave

“a gentle word of encouragement to colleagues in the other place”,—[Official Report, Commons, 9/12/24; col. 758.]

meaning us, calling for consensus and stressing that the Bill should proceed smoothly. That sentiment has been echoed here today, and in the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, who has urged us to deliver without further delay.

I am also aware of the emotional weight on our shoulders here. The Bill has been called Martyn’s law, as we have heard, in honour of Martyn Hett, who was so brutally and tragically murdered in the Manchester Arena attack in 2017. I am very conscious that these legal changes have been vigorously and compellingly argued for by Martyn’s mother, Figen Murray, for years, as we have heard. Despite the undoubted admiration that has been expressed here today for Figen’s courage and determination, I think we need to take a step back.

Our obligations as legislators means that we need to remain cool and dispassionate in bringing in laws, ensuring that legal changes are fit for purpose and proportionate, and that we consider the unintended consequences. In that sense, I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Frost, that however emotional this might be, and however serious it is, we have to be cool-headed. There are certainly points of concern and clarification that need to be probed during the stages of the Bill, and we should not have undue haste.

On a positive note, I welcome some modifications that this Government have made to the Bill. I am glad that concerns raised in consultations and pre-legislative scrutiny were listened to, especially the raising of the standard tier from 100 to 200, which will remove a large number of village halls, for example, from scope. I actually disagree with Figen, Brendan Cox, Nick Aldworth and the Martyn’s law team, who urged us, in a briefing today, to return to a starting threshold of 100. I am rather concerned that the Bill gives the Home Secretary discretionary powers to lower it to 100, without any clarity as to what might justify such a move.

I am pleased that education settings are now classified as standard duty premises regardless of capacity, although I am rather mystified that universities and higher education institutions are not included. We have already seen the way that the costs of security measures have been used as an excuse to close down debates on university campuses. The last thing we want is to turn universities into fortresses against public debate in any way.

It is positive that the Government claim to want a lighter-touch approach but, as we know from bitter experience, any powerful national regulator can lead to mission creep, and the paraphernalia around regulation is what worries me. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady May—though it is not reassuring—who is not in her place, that the consultants she talked about are already queueing up at the doors of those of us who organise events, offering to give us cheap advice on how we can comply with this law.

I declare an interest here. The Academy of Ideas, of which I am director, organises public events and debates ranging from our annual Battle of Ideas festival, now in its 20th year, which attracts thousands of members of the public, to more modest salons, seminars and panel discussions. We work with a wide range of venues of all shapes and sizes. The Bill will impact on our work through the potential added costs in hiring venues, liability, bureaucracy, et cetera.

More crucially, the aim of our work is to reinvigorate the public square and cultivate political and social engagement, for all ages but particularly for young people, at town hall-type gatherings, to open up conversations for the public with the public in public. That broader public square may be adversely affected by this law if we do not keep our eye on it. Civil society, people self-organising and getting together and grass-roots gatherings risk being curtailed. We need to think hard when we are told by small venues and event organisers, such as voluntary organisations and community groups, from church halls to small football clubs, that people will be put off volunteering by too much regulatory responsibility and paraphernalia. We need to probe what the consequences of such legal burdens could be in terms of loss of community infrastructure and assets.

In the most recent consultation, many respondents still expressed reservations about not just the financial implications and the fear of big fines—you cannot underestimate that—but the time spent on burdensome and bureaucratic admin. Venues are worried about their ability to meet legally mandated requirements with the limited resources available to them. There is genuinely some panic about how people will cope.

The Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, was spot on to note that the Protect duty must not be so prescriptive as to prevent people enjoying normal life. Yet consider the plethora of venues swept up by this law: pubs with beer gardens, swathes of the hospitality industry, which is already on its knees, libraries, museums, galleries, entertainment venues and even childcare facilities—lots of places where people socialise. These are places where normal life happens. I appeal to her idea that we must ensure that, although it might not be the intention of the Bill, there are no consequences which will lead to a more restricted public square and more impoverished normal life; otherwise, the terrorists win.

The Minister says that the Bill will save lives. That is quite a “gulp” moment. We need to be clear about whether it does. We are told that it will lead to a reduction in terrorist attacks or less vulnerability to them, but it is a bit disconcerting that the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee report and the Regulatory Policy Committee both queried the lack of evidence about whether the proposals will lower the threat of terrorism. Will lives be saved? I am still not convinced.

I understand the explanation about the changing nature of the threat, with DIY lone wolf attacks emerging out of the view of the security services, but if this means that greater swathes of public space can be possible targets, where anything can be used as a weapon—we think of the lethal use of the car in the recent awful New Orleans and German Christmas market attacks—is a focus on protecting bricks and mortar not rather missing the point? But if everywhere is a target and everything is a weapon, how will we avoid living in a police state? The worry is that the legislation could lead to energy being expended on a process-driven, box-ticking approach that may miss, for example, the deeper cultural and social challenges that we face.

It was harrowing to read in Sir John Saunders’ Manchester Arena inquiry, which others have commended and which is crucial to this discussion, about the preventability of Salman Abedi’s suicidal atrocity and the catalogue of failures in the months and even hours before he detonated that terrible bomb at the Manchester Arena. Venue regulation formed only a tiny fraction of Sir John’s recommendations. It seems pertinent to look at what the first volume of the inquiry told us about security at the venue.

In plain sight, Abedi was lurking around the arena for an hour and a half, acting suspiciously. We are told that he looked shifty and nervous and was fidgeting, carrying a huge, bulging rucksack and praying. One of the waiting parents, Christopher Wild, was so alarmed that he reported concerns that Abedi might be a bomber to security guards at 10.14 pm—16 minutes before the explosion happened. Mr Wild was fobbed off.

Maybe the training in this Bill would make those guards act differently. But let us also remember that we know from the inquiry report that one guard was suspicious but did not confront Abedi because he was

“fearful of being branded a racist”.

This points to the dangers of narrowing the threat of terrorism to organisational or technical issues. It suggests that we need to tackle more difficult challenges, such as the corrosive creed of identity politics, that can act as a barrier to acting on our instincts or using common sense for fear of being demonised—or recognising that promiscuous use of accusations such as “racist” and “Islamophobic” can paralyse individuals in society from doing the right thing. As we are all vividly aware at present, myriad local authorities, social workers, educationalists, care home staff and police officers failed to expose or intervene to stop gangs of men of largely Pakistani heritage committing industrial levels of rape and sexual abuse of girls throughout the UK, for fear of appearing racist, stirring up community tensions or being seen as—maybe I should not say this—jumping on a far-right bandwagon.

This Bill will not work if we do not confront that chilling impact of trepidation about speaking out over suspicions, exposing the ideologies fuelling and inspiring modern-day terrorism and doing the right thing. Je suis toujours Charlie.

Police Reform

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government have quite a lot of influence over policing. As the noble Lord will know, we set the budget for policing and will do so in December. As he will also know, particularly after my contribution today, there is £264 million of additional funding going in, along with £0.5 billion going in overall. Police national insurance contributions will be covered by central government, and a new policing unit is being put in place. There is a push on violence against women and girls. New respect orders are going into place. There will be new powers to tackle off-road bikes. We are giving priorities to police on those issues. This is a partnership. Police and crime commissioners are there, as are chief constables. The Government set a framework and set decisions—for example, the changes in law that we will bring to this House on shoplifting and shop theft. There is a serious central role, but self-evidently there is a local decision-making process as well.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, on White Ribbon Day, whose slogan is, “It starts with men”, will the Minister note the irony of the British Transport Police’s new policy allowing a male officer who identifies as a woman to conduct intimate searches of women? Will he add that to the police reform agenda and condemn, along with me, what some women’s rights campaigners are calling state-sanctioned sexual assault—that is, police violence against women and girls?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Trans people have a right to exist and be employed in communities to work with communities, and I will defend that right for trans people to hold responsible positions in society. If the noble Baroness wants to write to me with a specific example, we will look at that but, as far as I am concerned, let us get round to the basics that trans people are people.

Counter-Extremism Strategy

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the question and the way in which the noble Lord put it. Again, I am slightly constrained in outlining the conclusions of the review before it has been completed. But let me say to him that online extremism and online radicalisation, whatever forum they come from, are extremely important issues and will be a focus of government. Going back to the point my noble friend made earlier, we have to look at a cross-government strategy on this; what happens in communities through local government departments, for example, is as important in preventing radicalisation as what the Home Office and the security services do, and we need to be aware of that. When the conclusions are published and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has announced and opined on them, I will be able to report back to this House in more detail.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am sure that Ministers and Members on the Government Benches remember the election in July fondly. But lest we forget, it was marred by ugly episodes of intimidation and harassment. Can the Minister update us on promises from the Home Secretary to specifically investigate, for example, the openly anti-Semitic supporters and red paint-wielding pro-Palestine activists hounding and abusing candidates and canvassers alike? In the context of attempts to use fear to distort election results, can the Minister outline which of the recommendations for safeguarding democracy in the review by the noble Lord, Lord Walney, will be enacted, and when?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

There is a Defending Democracy Taskforce comprising a number of Ministers, led by my honourable friend Dan Jarvis, the Minister with responsibility for security and counterterrorism. It is reviewing a range of issues and working across government to ensure that the integrity of elections is maintained. By “integrity” I mean elections being free of interference from abroad and from intimidation at home. I hope that will help satisfy the noble Baroness.

Hezbollah: Threat to the United Kingdom

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Godson. I would like to follow his excellent introduction by raising concerns about the very same ideological threat posed by Hezbollah to the UK that we just heard about. It is extraordinary how normalised it has become at demonstrations on UK streets that, alongside aggressive, inflammatory anti-Israel chants, we are likely to see placards or hear slogans lauding Hezbollah as freedom fighters and rebranding its recently killed, warmonger leader Nasrallah as a brave warrior. We might ask: are such attitudes solely the spontaneous reactions to a brutal geopolitical conflict?

Something that might give us pause for thought are the words of Mohammad Raad, head of the Hezbollah group in Lebanon’s parliament, who boasted in an interview with Russia Today in June:

“We’re currently investing in protests and demonstrations in Western countries, especially among college students. We already have Muslim students agitating, but it’s the Western students themselves who will destabilize their own countries”.


No doubt there is a bit of hyperbole here, but it is really chilling to hear this explicit threat to the stability of western society, and it needs to be taken seriously. Can the Minister respond to the claim that Hezbollah is investing in demonstrations in the West? Do the Government have any knowledge of such financial support for UK street protests and campus encampments?

There seems to be a concerted attempt by agitators to give popular legitimacy to proscribed organisations, such as Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis and so on, whose USP is the destruction of Israel and whose propaganda is dripping in visceral anti-Semitism. Can the Minister explain how the criminal offence of supporting a proscribed organisation such as Hezbollah is understood? When it is so brazenly vocalised on our streets, but seemingly ignored by the police or authorities, it causes public confusion.

I am resistant to criminalising such verbal support, not only because of the importance of freedom of speech—one of those western values that Hezbollah and other Islamists want to destroy—but because I think we need more speech to counter this threat. If pro-Hezbollah propagandists are agitating on campus, we need to join that battle of ideas to win hearts and minds; but it feels like there is some inconsistency here. The Government seem unabashed at calling out some forms of extremism—rather promiscuously, in my view, calling too many people far right—but where is the high-profile government campaign to name and shame and expose the ideas of those peddling Hezbollah et al’s hateful anti-Jewish ideologies?

In a week that has witnessed the daubing of red paint on Jewish charities, for God’s sake, and respectable opinion calling for boycotts of Jewish authors, perhaps we must take more seriously the bigotry being peddled in the West and realise just how urgent it is that we tackle radical Islamist ideas in public.

Violent Disorder

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s welcome to me coming to this position. The Member for Clacton, if that was the Member he was referring to, is responsible for his own comments, in his own way and in his own time. He should be held to account by people in Clacton and by the wider community for any comments he makes. It is not for me to comment on that; it is for him to make those comments. What I will say is that, whenever things happen—as they do—we need to look at, and take action on, that criminal behaviour and close it down. Sometimes, it happens with summer activity, with people having too much to drink over long nights; sometimes, it is fuelled by right-wing violence and, other times, it is fuelled by other activity. If, underneath that, there are long-term trends of Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, right-wing ideology or, indeed, extreme left-wing ideology, we need to look, in a cold, calm way, at what has caused that, how we deal with it, how—following the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe—we intelligently police it and, ultimately, how we bring people to court if they have committed criminal offences. What Ministers can do is put the architecture together for that. The Prime Minister has been trying to look at the lessons learned from the initial response, which surprised many of us in that week after Southport, to see how we can improve that response and listen to what the police say about their own lessons. If that involves action by the Home Office in support of policing, that is what we will do.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I know that the Government are very conscious of the UK’s international reputation. I want to know whether there is any ministerial concern about the many free speech and civil liberties organisations around the world expressing shock about the degree of state- backed censorship being greenlighted in the wake of the riots. There is a worry that there is too easy a slippage and conflation between physical violence, which we can all condemn, and speech offences. The majority of people have not been incarcerated for incitement. They may have put out bigoted memes that we can deplore; none the less, people in the UK are being imprisoned not for what they do but for what they say. As there seem to be threats of more censorship, I want the Minister to reassure me that we will not end up in a situation where these riots, which were tragic enough, will chill legitimate debate and lead to a censorious, authoritarian atmosphere where people are frightened to speak freely.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

There is freedom of speech, and I made it very clear in the wake of the riots that people are entitled to criticise the UK Government’s asylum policy, immigration policy or any aspect of UK government policy. What they are not entitled to do is to incite racial hatred, to incite criminal activity, to incite attacks on mosques or to incite burnings or other criminal, riotous behaviour. That is the threshold. The threshold is not me saying, “I do not like what they have said”—there are lots of things that I do not like that people have said; the threshold is determined by criminal law, is examined by the police and is referred to the CPS. The CPS examines whether there is a criminal charge to account for, which is then either made through a guilty plea and a sentence, which happened with the majority of people who now face time in prison, or put in front of a court for a jury of 12 peers to determine whether an offence has been committed. There is no moratorium on criticism of political policy in the United Kingdom. There is free speech in this United Kingdom, but free speech also has responsibilities, and one responsibility is not to incite people to burn down their neighbour’s property.

King’s Speech

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I give a warm welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint. I went to school in Flint, so there is a special connection there. Also, I am full of hope listening to how the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, handled the earlier Statement on the prison crisis, especially on hearing his previous knowledge of and engagement with the nearly 3,000 IPP prisoners still languishing in jail indefinitely. A friendly warning: the Minister should expect to be pestered by many of us on this issue until Parliament’s admitted mistake—an actual miscarriage of justice—is put right.

This focus on prisoners is pertinent while discussing criminal justice in a debate on the humble Address. As legislators, we should be suitably humble about nodding through laws that can potentially imprison ever-greater numbers of our fellow citizens and turn erstwhile innocent people into criminals for activities that have to date been lawful. In that context, the proposal for the full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices, as we have heard, is worrying. The law is unnecessary, as gay and trans people are already protected by existing laws from those vile abuses described by campaigners for the legislation. The dread is that, instead, we risk criminalising medical staff, teachers, therapists, religious support workers, even parents—and even free speech—for helping gender-confused young people and not simply affirming the disquieting and wrong-headed notion that they are born in the wrong body. Meanwhile, hard-pressed shopkeepers in the future could be punished for selling tobacco products to a 28 year-old and a 27 year-old—one legally, the other illegally. This is a recipe for chaos, let alone creating a thriving black market in cigarettes. As a non-affiliated Peer, I look forward to lampooning this particularly daft law, pushed as a flagship piece of legislation by Rishi Sunak’s Conservative Government and now enthusiastically embraced by the new Labour Government.

Sometimes we should ask: are we creating new laws as a substitute for tackling deeper problems? In his speech on the humble Address, referring to the proposed crime and policing Bill, the Prime Minister declared that we will take back control of our streets. That is good, but how? By giving the police new powers, he says. But are the undoubted problems we have on our streets really because the police do not have enough powers? Would the recent grotesque and disturbing scenes of violence and rioting in Harehills really be solved by the police waving around those proposed new respect orders when, on the night, officers retreated from the streets of Leeds, seemingly abandoning the local community to frenzied criminality?

It is just not serious to suggest that you can solve the deep-seated cultural problem of declining respect in society—a crisis of authority, as it were—by resurrecting those discredited Blairite ASBOs, rebranded as respect orders. What is more, over recent years there has been a proliferation of these quasi-criminal behaviour orders, about 30 at the last count, yet anti-social behaviour is soaring. In terms of civil liberties, these behaviour orders do not specify particular offences, which means that the police can use them in a subjective, expansive and arbitrary fashion, often reinforcing a sense of unfair two-tier policing. On the night of the Euros final, the Met issued a killjoy anti-social behaviour dispersal order banning football fans from the Westminster area, yet it claims that it does not have enough powers to disperse Just Stop Oil or pro-Gaza activists from anti-social disruption here at Westminster on a regular basis.

Finally, it is only weeks since we witnessed one of the most chilling examples of out-of-control streets. That was, sadly, in the build-up to the general election. We saw unprecedented levels of ugly intimidation that mired electoral campaigning. To give a few examples: a trembling rabbi, a Conservative candidate, was surrounded by a hostile mob, screamed at and called a snake; a Labour candidate was hounded off the streets to chants of “Zionist devil”; young female leafleteers were harassed and filmed by older men bellowing “genocide” in their faces; tyres were slashed; campaign offices were daubed with blood-red painted anti-Semitic libel, “Zionist child killer”. This Islamist sectarianism that has burst into public life and poisoned the democratic process must be confronted, not by laws but by courage. Those who try to silence concerns with the accusation of Islamophobia ignore that many Muslims were themselves threatened with Allah’s wrath if they voted for Labour’s infidels. We cannot allow this menacing trend to be swept under the carpet, so it was gratifying to hear the maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, addressing extremism and to hear the Secretary of State, Shabana Mahmood, defiantly declare that:

“British politics must … wake up to what happened at this election”.


Hear, hear. Taking back control of our streets means more of this honest plain speaking and political leadership, and rather less of mealy-mouthed platitudes and performative lawmaking.