Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Harries of Pentregarth Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Lords Chamber

In that sense, I am sympathetic to dealing with non-violent ideology and extremism; I just do not know how to do it in the law. But I do want to know who the police are talking to, which mosques and which churches—we do not want to be sectarian, so let us have them all. The public need to know. I know that the Met’s counterterrorism command engages broadly with communities, apart from anything else seeking out advice on ideologies, including religious ideologies, perhaps with some grotesque results. Who can forget when the Metropolitan Police posted on social media in October 2023 about the true meaning of jihad in the middle of a demonstration by Hizb ut-Tahrir, which was referencing liberating Palestine and Muslim armies on the streets of London?

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

Why could not or should not the disturbing examples that the noble Baroness has cited already have been prosecuted under current legislation on hate law?

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

That might well be true, but it indicates that there might be a problem of the police not necessarily being impartial, because they are so busy forming community relationships with mosques that they are not necessarily listening to the kind of things that are going on in mosques or whatever other institutions. I agree with the noble and right reverend Lord, but this is the point I am making: Hizb ut-Tahrir are on the streets of London shouting about Muslim armies and jihad, while the Metropolitan Police, no doubt getting some theological Islamic advice from their religious advisers, put up a post saying that jihad has a number of meanings and should not be seen in just one way and talking about personal struggle and so on.

I want to finish with the example of what good community relations are and where we might be. Amid the Southport murder-related riots, that horrible period of disruption and violence on the streets, an extraordinary film was posted on TikTok of a police officer telling counter-protesters to stash the weapons in the mosque so that they would not have to arrest anyone. The liaison officer, wearing a blue police vest, was addressing a group of men gathered outside the Darul Falah mosque in Hanley, near Stoke-on-Trent, and was appearing to give the group of young men a weapons amnesty. He spoke to the crowd, saying:

“If there are any weapons or anything like that, then what I would do is discard them at the mosque”.


The reason why I am saying that is that I just think we should not be naive. That is the most important thing. When we talk about the police liaising with religious organisations, in a period of identity politics and in a period such as the one that we are living through in 2026, we should at least pause and not assume it is all going well. I therefore welcome the attempt at saying, “Let’s know who they are talking to”. That is the important reason why I support this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 439 and 446 in my name are technical in nature and provide changes to the provisions concerning the youth diversion orders.

Government Amendment 439 relates to the definition of ancillary offences in Clause 167(3). Clause 167(1) provides that a court may make a youth diversion order if satisfied, among other things, that the respondent has committed a terrorism offence. The definition of “terrorism offence” includes ancillary offences such as aiding or abetting the commission of an offence. This technical amendment ensures that the definition of an ancillary offence operates as it should—I know that the noble Lord will appreciate this—in the context of the Scottish legal system and also aligns the drafting of the legislation with that in Schedule 11 to the Bill for consistency.

Government Amendment 446 relates to Clause 182(2). This disapplies the six-month time limit for a complaint to a magistrates’ court in England and Wales so that an application for a youth diversion order may be made at a later date where necessary. The amendment similarly disapplies the six-month time limit in Northern Ireland. I know that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, also has two amendments in this group. I will respond to those after hearing his representations. I beg to move government Amendment 439.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to the two amendments in my name, Amendments 440 and 445. Amendment 440 would require the respondent to receive citizenship education in British values, and Amendment 445 sets out what those values are. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has also added his name to these amendments. He very much regrets that he is unable to speak this evening due to a commitment chairing a police commission that he is not able to change.

I will make two preliminary points to avoid misunderstandings. First, these amendments are not about personal values or lifestyles. They are about the fundamental political values on which our whole society is founded. Secondly, these values are not a kind of innovation in our law; they already have to be taught in our schools.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

440: Clause 169, page 207, line 2, at end insert—
“(aa) require the respondent to receive citizenship education relating to British values (see section (Further content: citizenship education)).”

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

My Lords, if I am allowed to respond, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Falkner of Margravine and Lady Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for their qualified support. I point out that there is no need for a national consultation about our fundamental British values because they are already there. They were brought into effect by the Conservative Government under the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton. My point is that the formulation is not adequate. I understand what the Minister says about not wanting to be too prescriptive, but I hope the Government will take much more seriously the whole question of fundamental British values and see whether there can be greater awareness and support for it in a whole range of legislation.

Amendment 440 not moved.