Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Goodman of Wycombe Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe]

438E: After Clause 166, insert the following new Clause—
“Report: non-violent extremismWithin three months of the day on which this Act is passed, each police force in England and Wales must publish a report setting out any strategies they have to reduce crime associated with non-violent extremism.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 438E, I will speak also to Amendments 438EA—which the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, has been kind enough to support—and 438F, 454A and 454B about non-violent extremism.

Right at the start, the term “non-violent extremism” requires a bit of definition. Noble Lords may ask whether the social practices of, say, the Christian Exclusive Brethren are extreme? Could the same be said of a Hasidic Jewish sect, an anarchist commune or a Quietist Salafi group in Islam? My view is that, while these groups and others can be problematic for cohesion and integration, they are not so in relation to the extremism that my amendments seek to address, for none of them is intrinsically connected to harassment, public order offences, acts of terrorism and other such breaches of the rule of law.

There are many extremist movements and ideologies that are; the three most prominent are the far left, the far right and, for want of a better term, the Islamists. All three aim 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”

these aims. I quote from the last Government’s definition of extremism. I am told that it is also this Government’s and would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether this is so when he replies to the debate.

Of these three forms of extremism—far-left, far-right and Islamist—the last has preoccupied public policy most since the London Tube bombings of 7 July 2005. Some 71% of terrorist incidents in Britain since that date have been executed by Islamists and 75% of the case load of Contest—the Government’s counterterror strategy—is concerned with Islamist threats. Only last October came the first murder since medieval times of Jews in England simply for being Jews, in the terror attack on Heaton Park synagogue in Manchester.

The question that has haunted public policy since 7/7, including crime and policing policy, is whether it should seek to address acts of lawbreaking alone or also the ideologies that help to drive them. To use the classic figure of speech, should policy seek simply to shoot the crocodiles or also to drain the swamp? The thrust of policy under Governments of all three main parties—as evidenced by Contest, which a Labour Government created; by the Munich speech of my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton in 2011, during the coalition years; or by Sir William Shawcross’s Prevent review three years ago—has been to seek to drain the swamp, but progress has been fitful. There has never been an overarching policy that seeks to counter Islamist and other extremism in our institutions and civil society—such as in charities and out-of-school settings, through to the NHS, universities and schools.

There is also the matter of sermons and talks in mosques—this is extremely topical, I am afraid—that incite hatred and violence. The X account habibi regularly draws attention to these, and I will send the Minister a file drawn on it after this debate. But he will already have available to him details of how many preachers in mosques have been prosecuted for such offences since, say, 7 October 2023. I would be grateful if he would share these with the Committee when he replies or, if he does not have the figures available, write to me.

My amendments could not possibly cover all this ground, nor do they fall into the trap of assuming that all extremism is terror related; nor that all extremism, whether terror-related or not, is Islamist; nor that Islam, an ancient and venerable faith, is to be conflated with Islamism, a modern and politicised ideology. Indeed, only one of my five amendments is religion-specific and it is not Islam-specific.

However, my amendments do seek to cover the ground I have been describing, and I am grateful for the emerging work of two all-party groups. The first is the All-Party Group for Defending Democracy, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Walney. The second is the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Counter Extremism, chaired by Damien Egan, MP for Bristol North East, whose visit to a local school was recently cancelled. He is the vice-chair of Labour Friends of Israel. It later emerged that the diversity and inclusion leader of the academy trust, of which the school is a part, had supported the Hamas terrorists of 7 October as “heroes”.

The all-party group has produced a report, Time to Act, which points out, first, that the last Government, in effect, scrapped their own counterextremism strategy in 2021. Secondly, this Government’s post general election “rapid analytical sprint” review of extremism has never, to the best of my knowledge, been published, although the think tank Policy Exchange obtained a draft. Thirdly, it is unclear whether the Commission for Countering Extremism, set up by the last Government, will continue. The commissioner, Robin Simcox, has not been replaced. The Minister, asked by me recently whether he would be, has now very kindly and promptly replied to say:

“We are reviewing the roles and remits of various bodies to ensure our resources are best placed to meet current challenges”—


which, if I may say so, does not cast a great deal more light on the matter.

I turn to the amendments themselves. My Amendment 454A would require the publication of the rapid analytical sprint. If the Minister will not accept the amendment, will he please tell the House when the sprint will be published?

My Amendment 454B would require the appointment of a Commissioner for Countering Extremism to replace Mr Simcox. Again, if the Minister will not accept the amendment, can he tell the House what his plans are for the commission, or, if he cannot do that yet, when he will?

My Amendment 438E would require each police force to publish its strategy for reducing non-violent extremism. Again, if the Minister will not accept the amendment, will he tell the Committee what plans the Government have for police forces in this regard and on what timetable?

Finally, my Amendment 438EA comes in the wake of the horrifying developments in Birmingham referred to earlier today by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, in which the West Midlands Police bowed to an extremist mob over a football game, conjured up evidence that does not exist to justify its decision, and then, in the words of Nick Timothy MP, “lied and lied again” about its actions, including to Parliament. Three of the eight mosques that the West Midlands Police consulted over its decision had hosted preachers who promoted antisemitic conspiracy theories or called for the death of Jews.

I expect police forces to liaise with mosques and with other religious institutions. It is important to point out that groups and organisations other than mosques were involved in lobbying the West Midlands Police over the game in question. But the public surely has a right to know which police forces meet with which mosques and other religious institutions of other faiths, and then to draw their own conclusions. My Amendment 438EA would require them to do so.

These are probing amendments, but we cannot have a void where policy should be when the future of our liberal democracy is at stake. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has explained, this group is largely about a concentration on efforts to combat non-violent extremism, about transparency and about efforts by the Government and police forces to counteract such extremism. He also calls for the appointment of a Commissioner for Countering Extremism.

The noble Lord particularly—and, I would suggest, rightly—recognises and is concerned with the importance of developing and fostering dialogue between police forces and religious communities, as well as a much wider understanding of the real concern and fear of religious communities in the face of extremism, not amounting to terrorism, that has become so much worse in recent years and particularly since 7 October.

This group gives us the opportunity to invite the Government to bring greater clarity and focus to their efforts in this area and to make it clear what it is that they plan. When Yvette Cooper, then the Home Secretary, directed the establishment of the rapid analytical sprint on extremism, she said that it was intended

“to map and monitor extremist trends, to understand the evidence about what works to disrupt and divert people away from extremist views, and to identify any gaps in existing policy which need to be addressed to crack down on those pushing harmful and hateful beliefs and violence”.

It is certainly right that the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, was directed to those ends—considering hateful and harmful beliefs and violence not necessarily amounting to extremism. The rapid analytical sprint was intended to be directed widely and, since then, publicity has been given to the concentration also on misogyny, racism, antisemitism and general community hostilities. It was commissioned last August, so perhaps the use of the word “rapid”, if we do not know when it is going to be produced, is not completely apposite.

The group is also concerned with the concept of youth diversion orders. We will debate youth diversion orders on a later group, but they are directed by the terms of Clause 167, as it is drafted, to terrorism and terrorism-related offences. It is certainly right that Clause 167(2)(b) talks about

“the purpose of protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism or other serious harm”,

but serious harm is defined in, and our attention is directed to, Clause 168, which talks about harm from

“conduct that … involves serious violence against a person … endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person engaging in the conduct, or … creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or … the threat of such conduct”.

Serious harm in that context is, effectively, the threat of violence. As I understood the speech and the amendments, as a whole, by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, they are also directed to the points that Yvette Cooper mentioned when the rapid analytical sprint was established. They go much wider and concern non-violent extremism, which is what this group is about. He talked about confronting ideologies and draining the swamp.

We would be grateful if the Minister, when he responds, clarifies what the Government’s target is in tackling non-violent extremism. How far is the government strategy for both government and police action aimed at producing an overarching strategy to tackle non-violent extremism as well as terrorism? We appreciate that it is perhaps more difficult in conceptual terms to develop such a strategy aimed at non-violence than it is to develop a strategy aimed at terrorism, which, while appalling, is relatively straightforward to define. The concept of non-violent extremism is altogether more difficult, and at the moment we are left in the dark about what the Government propose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

My Lords, this has been an appropriately sombre debate given the scale and sweep of the challenges described. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Foster and Lady Fox, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, as well as the two speakers from the Front Benches and the Minister for replying to the debate. As I say, it has been necessarily sombre.

The Minister, very helpfully, for a number of technical reasons, explained why he wants to reject all of the amendments that I have put forward. But the sum of what he said—in dealing with the amendments in his usual charming and emollient manner—is that he did not confirm that there is a definition of counterextremism, and so has not confirmed that the Government have maintained the last Government’s position. He has not confirmed whether or not the commissioner will or will not be appointed. As for the analytical sprint, I could not really follow the logic of his argument, which is that it is impossible for some reason to publish it because it would cause difficulties in doing so. The last person the Minister reminds me of is any of the Beatles, but I feel his policy is taking us on a bit of a magical mystery tour. We do not know where the policy on non-violent extremism is going and we do not really know when we will know.

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, caught the mood of the moment, which is a certain impatience. A vacuum in government policy simply is not good enough. Although I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that these matters are not best addressed by amendments and legislation—there was a certain element of probing in the amendments I have put forward—I do not think these matters have been entirely cleared up by the magical mystery tour that the Minister has taken us on and I reserve the right to come back to them on Report. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 438E withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, as always, the rational logic of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has been very helpful in untangling this issue. She has summed up some of my concerns and things that I am not sure about.

The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, has brilliantly articulated her worries about the glorification of terrorism and how it normalises terrorism into everyday life. I think that is valid. She notes that this is based on little knowledge, and little knowledge can be very dangerous. Whatever one thinks about Northern Ireland —and I assure noble Lords that at this end we do not all agree—it was a bloody conflict, and it is not to be treated lightly. Those who simply reduce it to slogans in the way that was described do not know what they are talking about.

In support of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, my concern is that when we get proscription legislation wrong, we also rob the notion of terrorism of its power to shock, of its content, and the danger is that we relativise it and trivialise it. I think a huge amount of damage has been done by putting Palestine Action into the same category as Hamas or ISIS. Even though Palestine Action, as has been described, is an obnoxious or objectionable organisation and should be held to account under the law when it uses criminal damage, I do not think it is a terrorist organisation. Putting those self-indulgent OAP protesters or students into the same camp as Hizb ut-Tahrir calling for jihad or those hate preachers I quoted earlier, for example, seems misplaced. It turns what I consider to be numpty protesters into some sort of heroes in their own mind, and it has captured the imagination.

If you go to universities, you now find that people think that anyone who supports Palestine Action is a free speech warrior who we should all get up and support. They do not understand why I, as a free-speecher, am not supporting it. The problem is that they now all think that terrorism is sitting on a road and saying, “I support Palestine Action”. If only terrorism were sitting on a road and shouting, “I support Palestine Action” or wearing a badge. That is not the content of terrorism, and there is a lack of knowledge about what terrorism is. If people think those people are terrorists, we sell young generations short by them not understanding what we are up against and what the problems are. Proscribing organisations, which is a very important weapon to use in a particular way, is one thing; treating those who simply are vocal in their support of that organisation, as has happened with Palestine Action, can just mean that we conflate slogans and words with terrorist actions or violent actions and empty them of any horror.

The difficulty is that I am torn. When I hear Bob Vylan, Kneecap or those student groups shouting “Internationalise the intifada” or strutting their stuff and cosplaying their support for barbarism, it is sickening and I want something to be done. Listening to the moving speech by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, you can see that that is what you might want to tackle. It is just that I do not think proscribing Palestine Action did that, and we are now paying the cost for having inappropriately used proscription of an organisation to devalue what we mean by terrorism.

If we no longer have young people in this country who have lived experience of terrorism—sadly, young Iranians do, for example, so let us not concentrate entirely on ourselves—they think going on a demo outside a prison fighting for the hunger strikers inside is as bad as it gets. They do not get it, but I do not think we have helped them get it either, which is why I am nervous about saying that glorification of terrorism in that context should be against the law, because we have to be very careful about what we are making illegal.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to speak briefly in support of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, which I signed. I do so, paradoxically, as someone who has written in the Daily Telegraph, of all places, against the proscription of Palestine Action. My argument was that there is a difference—this is to address the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner—between the intent of the protesters and the nature of the organisation.

There must be some common-sense way of differentiating between a violent organisation such as Palestine Action and Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS, al-Qaeda and so on. In fact, a way has been proposed, because the noble Lord, Lord Walney, produced a whole report for the last Government suggesting that organisations such as Palestine Action be subject to certain sorts of orders that would separate them out. But that raises the question: what about Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS, the IRA and so on?

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Goodman of Wycombe Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly commend the report of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, which I have read. My purpose in speaking, very briefly, is to interrogate Amendment 369, in the light of what we already have.

What we already have was very well put in a report by David Spencer of Policy Exchange, the director of which is my noble friend Lord Godson. David Spencer put the current balance very well, I think in his report A Long, Long Way to Go. He wrote:

“The Human Rights Act 1998 does not refer to a ‘Right to Protest’ – the relevant rights are the ‘Right to freedom of expression’ (Article 10) and ‘Right to freedom of peaceful assembly’ (Article 11). However, the sense that many of the recent wave of protests have been ‘peaceful’ by any ordinary understanding of the word – particularly when filled with antisemitic chanting through mobile sound amplifiers, calls for ‘jihad’ on the streets of London, or the use of criminal damage as a tactic – is clearly false. Further, Articles 10 and 11 are qualified rights”—


and this is the point about balance that other noble Lords have made—

“in that they can be restricted where it is necessary and proportionate to protect public safety, prevent crime and protect the rights and freedoms of others”.

I myself think that the balance in the Human Rights Act really puts the matter rather well when it refers to this right of peaceful assembly. Peaceful assembly surely does not mean that the protest must be meek and mild. One must expect protests to be noisy, turbulent, robust and, up to a point, disruptive. But the right of protests to be disruptive, as the noble Lord, Lord Walney, said a few moments ago, must be balanced against the right of others not to have their lives disrupted. That is the balance of the thing.

Furthermore, just in closing, there is a very difficult issue here that David Spencer raises very profoundly about some of the language that has been used in demonstrations that is very close to—trembling on the verge of—incitement. In a country where we have seen what happened in the synagogue in Manchester, and where attacks are carried out on other institutions, we have to bear that in mind.

In short, it seems to me this amendment is either reproducing what is already in the Human Rights Act, in which case it is unnecessary, or it is complicating it, in which case it should not really be there. My own sense is that it is complicating it, and that it makes no sense at all to scatter different rights willy-nilly in different pieces of legislation, rather than—if one is going to set positive rights out in statute—putting them in one place in the Human Rights Act, which is what has been done. So I think that the balance we have got is satisfactory and that the amendment does not really stand up to robust interrogation.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for bringing forward these amendments. The importance of peaceful protest in a free and democratic society is of course a principle supported by all noble Lords. I want to be clear at the outset that no one on the Benches on this side questions either the legitimacy or the constitutional right to protest.

I first turn to Amendment 369, which seeks to place an express statutory right to protest into the Public Order Act 1986. This amendment risks solving a problem that does not exist. That is our belief. The right to protest is already deeply embedded in our constitutional and legal framework, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has so carefully explained. It is recognised in common law, it long predates our membership of the European Convention on Human Rights and it has been repeatedly affirmed by the courts as a fundamental freedom in our democratic tradition. Crucially, this right has never been absolute. Historically, it has always existed alongside the equally important duties of the state to maintain public order, protect public safety and safeguard the rights and freedoms of others. That careful balance has evolved over centuries through common law and legislation. It is not at all clear that reinstating the right to protest in statutory form would add meaningful protection beyond what already exists.

There is a real risk that codifying such a broad and long-standing right in statue could have unintended consequences. By setting out open-ended duties on public authorities to respect, protect and facilitate protest, the amendment would inevitably invite further litigation and judicial interpretation. Decisions about the proper balance between protest rights and competing public interests, such as disruption to essential services or public safety, could increasingly be determined in the courts rather than by Parliament or accountable Ministers. That risks further frustrating the will of the Executive and of Parliament. I do not believe that placing an express right to protest into statute is either necessary or desirable. Our system has functioned for generations without such a provision and it is not evident that this long-standing settlement is now deficient.

I turn to Amendment 371, which would require an independent review of the existing legislative framework governing protest. We on these Benches are unconvinced of the case for such a review. The Acts listed have been subject to extensive parliamentary scrutiny and their compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights has been debated at length in both Houses. We do not support proposed new subsection (5) in this amendment, which would require the review to have regard to the impacts of legislation on the exercise of rights under the ECHR. The ECHR is already subject to unwelcome litigation which brings about perverse outcomes that were never intended at its commencement: there are plenty of examples of that. An additional independent review would be unnecessarily burdensome and duplicative, consuming time and public resources without a clear or compelling purpose. For these reasons, we on these Benches do not support either amendment. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and to further discussion of how best to uphold both the right to protest and the rule of law in a balanced and proportionate way.

Muslim Brotherhood

Lord Goodman of Wycombe Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, I say to the noble Lord that a wide range of offences and powers can be used to counter the threat from extremism, including any attempts by the Muslim Brotherhood to take action that is against the interests of the United Kingdom. That includes powers to regulate charities and to look at broadcasting, education and immigration. It also includes other offences, such as the encouragement of terrorism and public order offences. We will continue to monitor that and, if required, the appropriate authorities—the police or the security services—will take action.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

On the subject of extremism in the United Kingdom, can the Minister say whether the Government intend to replace Robin Simcox, the counter-extremism commissioner? If so, by when? If not, why not?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is an interesting question from the noble Lord. I do not wish to give him an answer today, but I will examine that issue for him. The appointment of the individual concerned is a matter for a ministerial colleague, so I will get back to the noble Lord on that issue.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Goodman of Wycombe Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

My Lords, others have referred to report of the Delegated Powers Committee on the Bill. I am a member of that committee, but I should emphasise that I, of course, speak today for myself personally, and not for the committee collectively. Indeed, I have no idea whether most members of the committee share my view that assisted dying is deeply problematic in principle.

But, as has been made clear, we unanimously concluded that the Bill is flawed in practice. By my count, our report made 13 main recommendations, covering vital matters such as the investigation of deaths, approved substances, the prohibition of advertising and, perhaps, above all, voluntary assisted services—in other words, the relationship between what the Bill proposes and how the NHS will dispose if the Bill comes into effect.

I quote from the report:

“There are several themes running through many of the issues we draw to the House’s attention … some delegated powers have very limited provision on the face of the Bill and leave so much to delegated legislation that there is insufficient detail or principle evident for proper Parliamentary scrutiny of the underlying policy; … in some cases, particularly where a substantial regulatory regime may be needed, this tendency results in skeleton legislation; … there are several clauses where delegated powers can be used to do anything that an Act of Parliament can do. This is a highly inappropriate formulation that gives sweeping, unspecified and unjustified powers to the Government while removing Parliament’s scrutiny role for provision that should be in primary legislation, and replacing it with the considerably more limited role of scrutinising delegated legislation”.


Noble Lords will have perceived that the main question the committee was tasked with answering was not “What does the Bill seek to do?” but “How does it seek to do it?”. I suggest that this is the key question, not just for the committee but for the whole House, which, for better or worse, tends to scrutinise legislation more exactingly than is sometimes the case in the other place. If the answer to the question “how?” is “inadequately”, a further question arises, namely, “How could the Bill be made adequate?”. Indeed, can it be made adequate at all?

I intend, as many other noble Lords intend, to table amendments in Committee and on Report, some of which will seek to effect the recommendations of our report. However, I cannot see how the Bill can be made adequate, no matter to what degree it is amended, for as Jill Rutter and Hannah White of the Institute for Government have noted, this Private Member’s Bill carries matters more weighty, profound and complex than it can properly bear, whatever the degree of government involvement and support. They write that

“a key problem with using this route to legislate is the lack of pre-legislative stages … Legislation on an issue like assisted dying would have benefited enormously from a more thorough preparation phase …a well-led review, involving many of the people on both sides of the argument, and with a mandate to engage the public, could have addressed the whole range of issues that MPs are now trying to navigate”.

I should add that this view was backed up by the Constitution Committee, which has echoed many of the criticisms of the committee that I have the privilege of sitting on.

I end with perhaps the most crucial criticism of the Bill in the committee’s report: it surely cannot be right that a matter so vital as the relationship between assisted dying services and the NHS is left to Ministers to propose by regulation. I ask noble Lords to consider whether a Bill that contains such a proposal can possibly be fit for purpose.

Migrants: Hotel Accommodation

Lord Goodman of Wycombe Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Evans of Rainow]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what standard of hotel accommodation they provide to migrants who have entered the United Kingdom in small boats from France.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my noble friend’s name on the Order Paper.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

I thought I was going to get a “two for” there. All accommodation meets relevant legal requirements, as well as contractual standards, to be safe, fit for purpose and properly equipped. The contractual standards are contained in the Asylum Accommodation and Support Contracts.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer and apologise for not being my noble friend Lord Evans. He has a contact who runs a series of hostels for backpackers, many of whom are young men who must, in the course of things, share facilities. But when my noble friend’s contact applied to the Home Office to take illegal migrants in his hostels, he was told this was impossible because not all the facilities are en suite. So my noble friend would like to know why shared facilities are suitable for young male legal backpackers but not for young male illegal migrants.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Perhaps the noble Lord could ask the previous Home Office Ministers under the last Administration, because all the contracts with the current asylum accommodation were signed by the previous Ministers. I am very happy to look at the issue, but I repeat, for the avoidance of doubt, that all the contracts were signed by previous Ministers under the last Administration.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Goodman of Wycombe Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

I warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord Harper on a very deft, excellent and accomplished maiden speech. It is a pleasure and a privilege to follow him. My noble friend was introduced to this House as recently as 13 May, so in speaking so soon he has helped to prove an important point, which is that if one is of sufficient seniority and knowledge, one should not be afraid here to get stuck in. My noble friend is of great seniority and knowledge as a former Minister for Disabled People, as a former Minister for Constitutional Affairs—he referred to some of his travails in that duty—as a former Secretary of State for Transport at Cabinet level and as a former Chief Whip, where he always conducted himself with the discretion that we associate with those who have held that office.

Above all, of course, he is a former Minister for Immigration under the leadership of my noble friend Lady May, who is in her place. He therefore knows how the nuts and bolts of the system work. I look forward to the Minister responding to what he said. I congratulate him once again on his maiden speech; we look forward to hearing from him many times in the future.

Today, however, I want to follow a slightly different path. His speech was focused on what the Bill will seek to do, whereas I want to address whether it is capable of doing it. I ask at the very start: how much do we really know about migration into and out of the country? How many migrants are in Britain today? Where do they come from? For how long are they entitled to be here? What are they doing while they are here? How many overstay and how many are removed? Finally, are they making a net contribution to the economy or are they a cost to the taxpayer? I ask these questions in the wake of data uncovered by my Commons colleague, Neil O’Brien. He has discovered that benefit claims by households with at least one foreign national have doubled to nearly £1 billion a month in the past three years.

Finding answers is made no easier by the absence of systemic exit checks and the asymmetry of entry checks. On exit checks, we rely on advance passenger information from carriers, selective Border Force checks and administrative data—council tax information, DVLA data, NHS records and so on. On entry checks, the bedrock of the system, the International Passenger Survey, was designed to monitor tourism, not migration. The databases used by different departments to record migration often define it differently. Further, published ONS statistics break down migration data only into EU, non-EU and British categories, but not specific nationalities. Anyone coming to the country on a visitor visa to see family or for tourism, for example, is excluded from migration statistics by default, as is anyone on a temporary work visa.

Therefore, what will this Bill do, in its sharing of information provisions under Part 1 or elsewhere to: on exit, increase the number of exit checks and standardise the information received from them; and, on entry, ensure that the databases used by government use the same definitions of migrant and can talk to each other? Additionally, what will the Bill do, if anything, to break down migration data into specific nationalities, so that we can find answers to some of the questions that I posed at the start of my speech? Further, what impact will the Bill have, if any, on the Inter-departmental Task Force on Migration Statistics, set up as long ago as 2006, to improve the quality, coherence and accessibility of migration statistics?

To return to those who overstay on visitor visas and temporary work visas, how many of the roughly 2.2 million people who arrived last year on visitor visas and the 78,000 people who arrived on temporary work visas overstayed? Is it correct that, annually, 92,000 visa nationals across all visa types, and up to 250,000 non-visa national visitors, may not depart on time? Is it also correct that as few as 1,000 visa national overstayers of these 92,000 or so, and as few as 500 of these 250,000 or so, are removed each year? To look at visa types more closely, is it correct that as many as 15,000 non-EU student visa holders may overstay annually, and as few as 1,000 of these are removed each year; that as many as 5,000 family visa holders may overstay annually, and as few as 500 are removed each year; that as many as 30,000 asylum seekers may become unauthorised annually by remaining in the UK after their claims are refused and their appeals exhausted, and as few as 5,000 of these are removed each year; and that as many as 900 people enter the UK irregularly each year without claiming asylum, and as few as 50 are removed each year?

Regardless of whether these totals are accurate or not, what targets do the Government have to increase the number of removals for this year and future years, if any? I do not expect the Minister to answer this barrage of questions when he replies to the debate at the Dispatch Box, but it is vital that we get them, both for the purposes of planning for the future and for maintaining confidence in the system. Will the Bill enable us to craft a more selective and efficient, as well as a more restrictive, immigration system? That should be a key test for the Bill.

Terrorism: Glorification

Lord Goodman of Wycombe Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, on obtaining this important debate and on bringing all her expertise and incisiveness to it in her opening remarks.

I declare my interest as set out in the register as a senior fellow at Policy Exchange, although my role there is unconnected with the issues of security, law and order, cohesion, integration and extremism that we will be discussing today. However, I was MP for Wycombe for nine years where, at that time, I represented more Muslims than any other MP from my party, and for several years I spoke as my party’s spokesperson in the Commons on integration and cohesion. So, although I will not discuss Northern Ireland today, I have an interest in the other matters raised by the noble Baroness.

I want to make five points and to ask the Minister some questions in the brief time I have. First, Hamas and Hezbollah are proscribed organisations. Secondly, there can be no doubt that they have been and are being glorified, on marches, online and, I am afraid to say, in mosques throughout the UK. If the Minister has any doubts on that last point, I recommend to him the excellent account on X called habibi, where he will see some of the most egregious instances laid out. However, I hasten to add that in my view—it is important to say this—most marchers and worshippers in mosques are not supporters of Hamas or Hezbollah.

Thirdly, this glorification reflects the import into our domestic politics of foreign strife abroad, particularly in relation to Kashmir and, as we all know, the Middle East. Fourthly, there can of course be no objection to anyone seeking to march or express views online, or even discussing in a religious setting the Middle East or Kashmir. I became very interested in the Kashmir issue when I was in the Commons and have raised it myself. However, there can be no room in our domestic politics for thuggery, abuse, violence or intimidation, all of which we are now beginning to see in some of our inner-city constituencies, especially during general elections, as the Minister will be well aware. Fifthly, and finally, this glorification and the issues that arise from it are fuel for the far right and the far left, both of which seek to undermine and collapse our democratic politics.

I move on to some questions for the Minister about policing. I pay tribute to the work of the police, who have very difficult decisions and judgments to make. I introduce these questions with a quote from Matt Twist, Assistant Commissioner at the Met, who said:

“When we look back at the policing of protests over the last eight months, we know we didn’t get everything right”.


He said that while being interviewed for the Policy Exchange report, Might is Right?, by David Spencer, Sir Stephen Laws and Niamh Webb. My questions arise from recommendations in the report. I am not expecting the Minister to provide detailed answers today but if he does not have them, I would be grateful if he would write in due course.

Will the Government change the criteria to prohibit a protest march under Section 16 of the Public Order Act 1986 to prevent serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community, explicitly including the impact of cumulative disruption? Will the Government introduce a provision to prohibit a march if it would place any undue demands on the police or military forces, replicating Section 11 of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998? Will the Government amend Section 11 of the Public Order Act 1986 to increase the notification period for all protest marches to 28 days, replicating the requirements in Northern Ireland? Will the Government legislate to expressly reverse the DPP v Ziegler Supreme Court verdict to ensure that no protester has a lawful excuse for obstructing the highway and for any public order offence, if he or she intends to obstruct, harass, inconvenience or harm others? Will the Government legislate to make it unlawful for individuals at protests to wear face coverings wholly or mainly with the intention of concealing their identity? Will the Government consider introducing a parades commission in London, and perhaps elsewhere, modelled on the commission in Northern Ireland?

Our liberal democracies depend on trust in order to function, and it would appear that trust is in decreasing supply, I am afraid, in countries that maintain high migration, have low growth and have high tech. I look forward to the Minister answering questions.

Southport Attack

Lord Goodman of Wycombe Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

Further to the answer that the Minister has just given, Jonathan Hall, the Government’s independent reviewer of counterterror legislation, said, in the aftermath of these heartbreaking killings, that

“if there is any information you can give, put it in the public domain, and be really careful that you don’t fall into the trap of saying ‘we can only say zilch, because there are criminal proceedings’”.

He continued:

“Quite often, there’s a fair amount … that can be put into the public domain”,


and that

“just saying ‘there’s a charge, we can’t say any more’, is not going to cut it these days”.

I appreciate, as the Minister says, that the position is very difficult, and one does not want to prejudice a trial. But will he reflect on what the independent adviser said, and did he agree with it?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the way in which the noble Lord has put his question. We have now charged the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation to examine the lessons from this case. He is responsible for the comments he has made. But he will present a report, which this Government will publish and present to both Houses in due course, on the issues that he thinks are relevant; we will respond, and that is the right and proper way to do it. I am not about to make policy now at the Dispatch Box, nor is my right honourable friend, on issues which demand and need reflection, and I hope the noble Lord understands the reasons I have responded in that way.

Defending Democracy Taskforce

Lord Goodman of Wycombe Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the answer by Lord Hanson of Flint on 20 November (HL Deb col 207), what progress the Defending Democracy Taskforce has made with its review of security and counter-terrorism.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

As a resident of Wales, I endorse the comments made about Baroness Randerson and her service to Wales and the Wales Office in particular.

The counter-extremism review concluded over the summer and Ministers are now considering the recommendations. The Defending Democracy Taskforce will drive a whole-of-government approach to a full range of threats to our democracy, which includes ensuring that elected representatives can carry out their roles safely. Since July, we have been learning the lessons of the general election also, with a particular view towards the upcoming local elections in May. The Government will update the House on that work in due course.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. What assessment has the task force made of whether any foreign state or states seek to promote the introduction in Britain of a blasphemy law, which would be—and I hope the Government will agree on this point—completely unacceptable?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government keep under review at all times the influence and threats from foreign powers. I will reflect on the particular point the noble Lord mentioned, but we are very clear that foreign influence on UK government policy, or the undermining of elections, is not acceptable.

Illegal Migrant Returns Agreements

Lord Goodman of Wycombe Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards securing additional illegal migrant returns agreements with foreign governments.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

On behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

The UK utilises a range of returns agreements and operational returns arrangements to facilitate the readmission to home countries of those with no right to remain here. We continue to engage with foreign Governments to maintain, develop and improve operational return processes and co-operation.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. The Government recently signed a returns agreement with Iraq. Can he explain how this will work, given that the central Government of Iraq control part of the country and the Kurdish authorities another? In addition, can he give his assessment of the likely impact on this agreement of the current acceleration of hostilities in Syria?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. As he knows, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary visited Iraq last week and has engaged with the Government of Iraq to look at co-operation on a number of fronts, to try to stop small boats, to facilitate returns and to look at other issues to do with criminality, terrorism and co-operation between the two authorities on law enforcement matters. Further details of the engagement and discussion will be announced in due course. I hope the noble Lord recognises that that is another step to go with the 9,400 returns we have made and the 1,520 foreign national offenders we have deported, both since 5 July.