Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Walney Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Thursday 16th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Walney]

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 311.”

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, I was disappointed that the Government directed their Members in the Commons to vote down Amendment 311, which would have created a limited power for the Government to designate as an extreme criminal protest group organisations that attempt to influence public policy through a limited number of offences, including criminal damage, without labelling them as terrorists or criminalising simple expressions of support, such as holding up signs.

I am grateful for the time that the Minister has taken to meet me directly on this matter on a number of occasions, as he said. He has characterised the Government’s objections in two areas. The first is the observations made by the Government’s Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall, which were published on 31 March and the second is the review of public order legislation by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, which he assures me is due to report shortly.

I shall deal with both those issues briefly. Jonathan Hall makes important points that we should all reflect on. He summarises his objections as: first, that the power potentially overlaps with terrorism proscription, but the relationship is unclear; secondly, that the existence of the new power will be used to undermine terrorist proscription; and, thirdly, that it is doubtful whether new offences are suitable for groups operating below the national security threshold. I shall take these three objections in turn.

On the first point, if that is a genuine concern to the point that the Government believe that there is genuine potential for a proscribed group to be able legally to contest the proportionality of a full terrorism proscription because of the existence of a lower form of designation, then it is surely within the Government’s power to insist that the one does not preclude the other. That is a safeguard that could be put into legislation that the Government bring forward.

On the second point—the idea that this will be used to undermine terrorist proscription—it is important to make the point that we are dealing with a narrow and quite unusual form of proscription here that uses the part of the definition of terrorism that relates to economic damage. A group that is to be designated as terrorist because it used violent methods to target individuals or groups to kill has never been under the scope of this extreme criminal protest group designation. We are dealing with the relatively narrow issue of a group that uses methods such as Palestine Action has used, where there has been a level of violence that the Government have asserted as part of its proscription, but it is undoubted that the main part of what it has done has been intimidation and attempts to influence public policy through criminal damage. Jonathan Hall suggests that, if you move the goalposts, these groups would find new ways to break the law proportionately; even if that were not holding up signs, they would find a new way to do that. That is, of course, a possibility. We could never devise legislation that could guarantee against people performatively trying to clog up the court system in the way that is happening at the moment with the Palestine Action protesters. The key point here is that, while there will always be a hard core of people who are determined to contest this, what has made Palestine Action’s terrorist proscription so controversial is not that people agree with what it is doing but the fact of labelling it as terrorism.

I agreed with the proscription of Palestine Action, which I know is not universal in the House. I hope that the Government’s appeal against the High Court judgment is successful. Nevertheless, it cannot be seen as good public policy and it cannot be seen that this framework is working if the Government took five years to reach the judgment that the sustained campaign of criminal damage and vandalism that was carried out by Palestine Action reached the terrorism threshold. This measure would enable faster action to deal with that. I know that the Minister will not say that the Government would be deterred from designating another group that eventually reached the terrorism threshold primarily through criminal damage. They will not admit that, but I suggest that they would be highly wary of repeating this with the next Palestine Action group because of the level of controversy that this has generated. Therefore, there is a gap in the legislative framework that is not being filled.

That leads to the third point, where Jonathan Hall says that he contests whether the powers are appropriate, given that they are relatively severe. They are significantly less severe than terrorist proscription but still relatively severe. I respectfully disagree with him on that point. I hope that he, and the Government, will reflect, given the nature and severity of the problem of extreme protest groups using criminal damage in a systematic way, which is causing huge amounts of economic damage and damage to the public realm.

That ties into the second of the Government’s objections, which is, as the Minister has stated a number of times and again today, my noble friend Lord Macdonald’s upcoming review. We are all looking forward to that, and I hope that I am able to persuade my noble friend Lord Macdonald of the merits of this, but the fact is that the Government have acted ahead of this review in other areas and could do so now. There is a need to do so now, rather than to wait for when the next legislative opportunity comes along, which may be years down the track.

There is a growing epidemic of these tactics being used to frighten the public and try to deter businesses from carrying out legitimate, lawful activity. I had a meeting with a major insurance supplier yesterday, which does not want at this point to be public because of the fear of further reprisals. It spelled out that because of being tangential—at one, two or three removes from—to a defence company that may have some relationship with Israel’s conflict in Gaza, though that is highly debatable, it is repeatedly attacked. Its windows are being smashed, red paint is being daubed over its offices and its employees are frightened to go to work. It is spending literally millions of pounds per year on preventive measures and the clean-up operations. That is one single insurer, and this is spreading. It is completely unacceptable that the defence industry is being subjected to this, but it is spreading far beyond the defence industry into the insurance and financial sectors, and other sectors.

The framework we have is not adequate to deal with this. It would not be disproportionate to put in place this limited measure to be able to restrict the activities of such organisations and send a message of greater deterrence, to protect businesses, workers and the public from this sustained intimidation. I beg to move.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, Motion S1 is in my name. On Report, your Lordships supported Amendment 342 for one overriding reason: to make sure that the tragic failures of the past are not built into future law.

Three days ago, the Fulford report into the Southport tragedy was published. I had hoped that it might lead to a change of heart by the Government, but, regrettably, it has not. Fulford’s findings are stark: the tragedy was not caused by a lack of powers but by systemic failure. Risk information was mishandled, lost or watered down as it passed between agencies. No one was responsible for pulling the full picture together. Referrals went unanswered. Officers often acted without knowing what help or interventions were available, and some decisions were taken outside the bounds of what could reasonably be expected because the system had failed them.

These failures cost lives. Fulford makes it clear that, unless the way agencies share and account for risk is strengthened, such failures will happen again. These were not one-off mistakes; they were the result of weak information management and an absence of co-ordinated leadership. The danger was not properly recognised because no one joined up the information and acted upon it. That is precisely the gap which my amendment is designed to close.

The Government tell us that this should be left to guidance. They say that a statutory duty for multi-agency consultation would make the law too rigid and prevent judges exercising discretion. Surely that gets things the wrong way round. Judges can use their discretion properly only if they have had all the relevant information before them. A few minutes ago, the Minister said that the police have a duty to consult, and they do, but that duty is narrow. It is limited to the youth offending team. It leaves out the schools, health professionals and social services who often know the child best. Amendment S1 would not reduce discretion; it would support informed decision-making and, as a result, better public protection.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, my understanding of the Companion is that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is correct in what he said: if it wishes, the House can set aside the Companion and hear from a noble Lord, but in that case a Motion has to be put and voted upon.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, I do not know whether this is helpful in any way—probably not—but as the proposer of the Motion, I really would appreciate hearing what the noble Lord on the Front Bench has to say on it.

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

My Lords, on that basis, unless I am stopped, I will speak briefly.

On the first Motion I was going to address, that of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, we have a great deal of sympathy for his proposal. Indeed, we would go so far as to say that it seems like a good idea. Its principal appeal is that it would permit a step falling short of proscription of an organisation, which would not involve anyone peacefully expressing support for that organisation at a demonstration or a protest being arrested, charged and possibly convicted of an offence under the Terrorism Act. In that, I fully agree with the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.

I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Walney, does not intend to press his Motion to a vote, and we on these Benches think he is right in that because our reservations remain. We abstained on Report, and our principal reason for doing so was that the amendment leaves in place the present law on proscription and does not oblige the Government to make a designation of a group as an extreme criminal protest group where the existing threshold for proscription is met, so we would be left with the position that the Government would have two alternative designations as options: one with consequences that we consider to be undesirable, far too severe and damaging; and the other with far less serious consequences. We think that risks introducing an element of muddle and a lack of clarity into this very difficult but important area of the law. It is important for civil liberties and the rights of the citizen, and important for the control of terrorism and of public criminal behaviour more generally.

As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, mentioned, we await the decision of the Court of Appeal and any possible appeal to the Supreme Court on the proscription of Palestine Action, and we also await the review of public order law by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven. We are not persuaded that it would be sensible now to introduce a compromise that would address a very real difficulty with the Terrorism Act as it stands but would leave the law uncertain. It is better by far, we suggest, to wait and trust that a more comprehensive and credible solution to the difficulties presented by the present law can be found that does not involve leaving the law unamended and available on proscription alongside an alternative system introduced as a partial answer only to the weaknesses of the law as it stands. We applaud the noble Lord, Lord Walney, for the work he has done on this and we think he has a sensible way forward, but it needs further work and we agree that it should not be pressed at this stage.

On Motion S1, I have nothing to add to what was said by my noble friend Lady Doocey, except that these Benches are fully behind everything she said in approving of her Motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the discussion we have had to date on these matters. As I made clear in my opening remarks—for those who heard them, at least—the Government cannot accept Amendment 311 as drafted. I fully appreciate the work of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, on these issues, but as I have set out to the House already, and as I set out to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in particular, the independent reviewer has made clear his view that this would undermine the existing proscription regime. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, also recognised that, and I say also to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that this was the position. With the review of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, coming forward, it is right that this amendment not be accepted today. I particularly welcome the recognition of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, of that. That is not to undermine the arguments he has made, but we are where we are at the moment.

On Amendment 359, I stress that both this and previous Governments do not comment on organisations that are being assessed for proscription. As I mentioned in my opening remarks—for those who heard them—we have sanctioned 550 Iranian individuals, including members of the IRGC, so we are holding the Iranian regime to account. We have also put them in the foreign influence registration scheme.

If I may say so, I take objection to the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that our not proscribing the IRGC somehow supports the Iranian regime—it does not. I will not accept that we should give a running commentary on proscription. With due respect to the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, they have not had intelligence in front of them on these issues from the intelligence services. We are making judgments as a Government, and we are not going to give a running commentary on what and when we proscribe, because that is a very dangerous position to take.

I remind the House—without commenting on the IRGC in particular—that any eventual proscription order on anybody is voted on by both Houses of Parliament, where it can be tested at that time. I am not in a position today to give a running commentary on the possible proscription of the IRGC, nor will I accept in principle the fact that both Opposition Front Benches think it right to do so. That may be their view, but the Government have to take a view on these matters in due course. It is not for us to give a running commentary on those matters. I say that to the House as a whole.

I stress again that I understand and accept the concerns that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, put before the House today. We will make it clear in statutory guidance that authorities must consider a range of options and interventions before deciding whether to apply for a youth diversion order. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, also stressed that it was important to do so. I stress to both noble Baronesses that the police are under a duty to consult multi-agency youth offending teams, which comprise health, education, probation and police services. I am happy to share a draft of the guidance with the noble Baroness in due course, but at the moment I cannot accept the amendment.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, for her work on her amendment on glorifying terrorism, and for giving her own personal experiences. It is very difficult to do that, and I understand the circumstances that she and others find themselves in. I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Polak, on glorification in general. On the incident in Finchley that has been mentioned today, individuals are under arrest and in custody for the alleged offence. We should obviously allow the police to do their job and determine whether charges should be put forward to the CPS for consideration. None the less, that type of incident—whether or not the individuals under arrest are responsible—is simply not acceptable. The Government and others should stand with the community as a whole.

I was pleased to hear and welcomed the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, and the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, but I cannot accept the Motions in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. I ask—in anticipation and hope rather than aspiration and agreement—that they be content not to press their Motions. In the meantime, I beg to move my Motion N, and I hope the House will agree to it.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, I thank everyone for their insight on and support for the principle behind this matter, which is that urgent action is needed. In the light of what has been said, I am reluctantly content to withdraw my Motion. In doing so, I will leave the Minister with two thoughts.

First, this will not go away. I hope the Minister will take away the urgent need to deal with this matter and bring forward a solution—this debate has shown that that is possible—in order to address the concerns set out in this Chamber and outside it. Secondly, I hope he will agree to meet with me and others to look in the meantime at an array of protections for the affected businesses, in advance of any legislative change. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion NI withdrawn.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Walney Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Walney]

371A: After Clause 137, insert the following new Clause—
“Designation and restriction of Extreme Criminal Protest Groups(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations designate a group as an Extreme Criminal Protest Group (“ECPG”) where the Secretary of State reasonably believes that—(a) the group has as its purpose and practice the deliberate commission of one or more of the following offences—(i) an offence under section 1 of the Public Order Act 1986 (riot),(ii) an offence under section 2 of the Public Order Act 1986 (violent disorder),(iii) an offence under section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 (destroying or damaging property), or(iv) an offence under section 7 of the Public Order Act 2023 (interference with the use or operation of key national infrastructure),(b) such offences are carried out with the intention of influencing public policy, parliamentary debate, ministerial decision-making, or the exercise of democratic functions, and(c) the activities of the group create a risk of serious harm to public safety, democratic institutions, or the rights of others.(2) A designation under subsection (1) does not amount to proscription for the purposes of the Terrorism Act 2000.(3) The following are offences in relation to group designated as an ECPG under subsection (1)—(a) membership of a designated ECPG;(b) promotion of a designated ECPG, including public advocacy, recruitment, or dissemination of the group’s materials;(c) fundraising for a designated ECPG, including soliciting or providing funds or financial benefit;(d) organising, directing or coordinating activities of the group;(e) providing material support, training, funds or equipment to the group where the person knows or ought reasonably to know that the recipient is a designated ECPG.(4) A person does not commit an offence under subsection (3) solely by expressing an opinion or belief that is supportive of a designated ECPG, where that expression does not amount to encouragement or assistance of criminal conduct.(5) An offence under subsection (3) is punishable on conviction—(a) on indictment, by imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or a fine, or both;(b) on summary conviction, by imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine, or both.(6) Before making regulations under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement of reasons explaining why the designation is considered appropriate.(7) The statement under subsection (6) may exclude material the disclosure of which would, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, be contrary to the public interest, including on grounds of national security or the prevention or detection of crime.”

[Lord Walney (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to lead off this grouping on counterextremism. My Amendment 371A, tabled with co-sponsors the noble Lords. Lord Pannick and Lord Hogan-Howe, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, would create a limited mechanism to give the Government the option to seek parliamentary approval to restrict the activities of an extreme criminal protest group that was dedicated to committing criminal damage for political purposes. It would do so without branding individuals or the group as terrorists, and it would expressly rule out criminalising mere expressions of support that did not encourage illegal conduct. If it were applied instead of terrorist proscription, it would avoid the controversy of people being arrested for holding up signs in the manner that has happened so recently with Palestine Action under the provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Following concerns in Committee that the original amendment was too broad and risked unduly restricting freedom of speech and association, we have substantially narrowed its scope. The number of offences here has been narrowed to riot, violent disorder, criminal damage or attempts to interfere with key national infrastructure. There is no possibility of widening those criteria without further primary legislation. Subsection (3) has been clarified so that assisting a designated group would be an offence only where the individual was knowingly furthering the group’s aims. Expressions of support for a group that do not amount to encouragement or assistance of criminal activity are expressly not criminalised in this text.

Contrary to what I suspect the Minister may be about to say in response, this proposal is timely now, despite the Government’s ongoing appeal against the High Court judgment that ruled the terrorist proscription of Palestine Action to be disproportionate. In fact, the pending appeal makes it all the more timely. This amendment does not affect that appeal itself. It makes no comment on the wisdom or otherwise of the Government's assessment that Palestine Action had met the terrorism threshold after its five-year-long campaign of criminal damage and occasional use of violence.

If passed, however, this proposal would allow Ministers to seek parliamentary approval through a positive statutory instrument to restrict the activities of a future criminal group that held the purpose, which is the strategic intent, and the practice, which is the track record, of using criminal damage for political purposes like Palestine Action did. That is another way, in specifying purpose and practice, that the amendment has been tightened from the text debated in Committee. Thus, it would allow action in a future scenario to be taken much sooner before the group had met the terrorism threshold. The penalties applied for offences would be lower: up to three years’ imprisonment, rather than up to 14 years under the Terrorism Act. It would not criminalise expressions of support, as I have said, and it would avoid those convicted being saddled with an offence under the Terrorism Act for the rest of their lives.

If the Government’s appeal against the Palestine Action ruling is unsuccessful, this would provide an alternative to deter the group’s malign activities should those activities be resumed once proscription was lifted. That is just one of the reasons why the House should not take the advice, which I suspect the Minister is about to give, not to accept this amendment and wait instead for the outcome of the review by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, and then inevitably push this issue down the road for the next crime or public order Bill perhaps years hence. We all look forward to hearing the noble Lord’s views, but the Government themselves are not waiting for his view when they want to take swift action in other areas, such as on the cumulative impact caused by protests.

I hope, by the way, that the Minister will also accept my Amendment 377A to extend the cumulative impact provisions that he has laid applying to Sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act to Section 13, thus giving the police the power to recommend that a march does not go ahead on a particular day if the cumulative impact is sufficiently severe.

To go back to Amendment 371A, there have of course been many reviews in this territory, including my own when I served as the Government’s independent adviser on political violence and disruption. That review made the recommendation on extreme criminal protest groups that is encapsulated in Amendment 371A when it was published in May 2024, nearly two years ago. This is an appropriate time to act. It is an appropriately limited measure that can make a significant difference while completely preserving the right to protest and freedom of expression and association.

--- Later in debate ---

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

A lot has been discussed this evening, and I will try to respond to the amendments as best I can. I welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Walney, has moved his amendment. I had a chance to talk to him earlier online; he has arrived on time, and I am pleased he is here to move it. He has had support from across the House, including from the noble Lords, Lord Polak, Lord Pannick and, in part, Lord Davies, and my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith, and I thank him for his amendment. Other noble Lords and Baronesses have spoken in favour of the legislation, and I note the comments made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Verma, and, in the context of this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. I will come to the separate amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, in due course.

The nub of the argument is that Amendment 371A shows that there is an impact of sustained criminal activity, including serious incidents involving damage to property, intimidation and risks to public safety, and it should be dealt with as an interim measure between proscription and criminal damage legislation as a whole. I outlined to the noble Lord, Lord Walney, in a recent letter that the Public Order Act 1986 grants police powers to manage protests by imposing conditions, and looks at those it is necessary to place on protests, including location, route and date. I also pointed out to the noble Lords, Lord Walney and Lord Pannick, and my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith, whom I also met today, that the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, is currently undertaking an independent review of public order and hate crime legislation, which will cover whether existing legislation is effective and proportionate. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, acknowledged that the review, which will report later in the spring, will discuss and give some potential framework to the existing legislation. Also, the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme, the action we have taken on Palestine Action under the 2000 Act, the work of Prevent and the protest legislation in the Bill are all measures that deal with similar issues to those the noble Lord, Lord Walney, has brought forward.

To come to the nub of the problem, which I hope noble Lords will accept, I understand that there are a range of views on the amendment, and I may find myself in a minority on this if it goes to a Division, which I hope it will not. When I look at the amendment itself, if there was such a tool as that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Walney, below the threshold in the Terrorism Act 2000, it would not have stopped the Government proscribing Palestine Action under the 2000 Act. The assessment was made that Palestine Action passed the statutory test for proscription at that time. As noble Lords will be aware, although there is a Court of Appeal hearing on Palestine Action, the High Court agreed in its first consideration that Palestine Action had organised and undertaken actions amounting to terrorism. A case is pending that will be reviewed and the Government will have to respond to it in due course.

However, I would argue that, at present, we have the tools in existing public order and related legislation to tackle the type of criminality that the noble Lord, Lord Walney, mentioned. We are significantly upscaling our efforts on counterextremism as a whole. Groups that meet the Terrorism Act threshold, and individuals acting on their behalf or in support of them, will be dealt with under existing proscription powers. Where groups do not meet the threshold for proscription, we will continue to assess the activities of organisations against our legal frameworks and existing legislation. If there is evidence of purposeful actions that are potentially radicalising others into terrorism or violence, proportionate action will be taken. I have mentioned already things such as Prevent, the protest legislation and other measures. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, will review those matters in due course.

To answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and others, that the Government have brought forward legislation, we have commissioned the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, to undertake a review, but the amendments we have brought forward are in response to urgent matters that we felt we needed to tackle. I have tabled those in relation to protest legislation to ensure that we manage difficult challenges by putting forward legislation on, for example, protests, marches and giving the police powers. I suggest to the noble Lords, Lord Walney and Lord Pannick, that it is something we should take our time to consider. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, is bringing forward his review shortly, in the spring. This amendment, whether in its original form or as amended by Amendment 371B put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, effectively seeks to create a parallel regime to that in the Terrorism Act, which the Government believe is not necessary and risks unjustified interference with rights to free speech and freedom of association. The Government must be able to protect our citizens from the harm of extremism, violence and hatred but, in doing so, we must strike the right balance between protecting freedom of speech and tackling those who promote violence and hatred in our communities.

Amendment 441B, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Walney, concerns access to public funds for organisations promoting or supporting criminal conduct. Again, I say to him that the Government provide funding to a huge range of organisations through grant schemes administered by departments and arm’s-length bodies across government. Any grants of public funds are subject to Treasury guidance set out in Managing Public Money, which looks at risk, control and assurances that grant controllers are required to take into account. Is the legislative route required?

Today, and this goes to the heart of amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, we have published the social cohesion action plan. A number of comments have been made about the issues in the plan, including by the noble Baronesses, Lady Verma and Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe. It was put on the website probably less than an hour ago and is many pages long. I simply ask that Members look at what is in it, its context and the things we are trying to challenge so that all communities, whatever their religion, can live their lives in freedom, and so that we have social cohesion in what is, and will remain, a multicultural society. The engagement principles will be updated so that public bodies do not confer legitimacy, funding or influence on extremist groups.

On Amendment 419, which would require the publication of a counterextremism strategy, the noble Lord said that he has raised it in Questions, in amendments in Committee and in Grand Committee in a special debate. We are looking at the issues he has raised; there will be further updates and reports on the matter, and I advise him to look at the social cohesion strategy—which, as I said, was produced within the past hour—in full.

Extremists often deliberately operate without meeting thresholds for criminal conduct and cannot be prosecuted for their actions. Despite this, this Government still have a responsibility to protect our citizens from the harm of extremism, violence and hatred. But in doing so, we still have to protect the balance between freedom of speech and tackling those who promote violence and hatred in our communities.

We have been very clear in our approach to counterterrorism and counterextremism. We have an overarching counterterrorism strategy, an approach that ensures counterextremism efforts are focused on the highest harm threats, in direct support of our core counterterrorism and wider security mission. The local social cohesion strategy, published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in the past hour following a Statement in the House of Commons—which I suspect will be repeated here shortly—is trying to marry those things together to provide social cohesion. I hope that answers the points from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, on those issues.

Finally, with Prevent, Contest and the definitions of extremism we have examined, set out by the previous Government in 2024, we believe there are strong mechanisms to tackle extremism while ensuring we support all members of our society. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said that Jews do not count. I say to her, genuinely, that everybody in society counts; everybody has a right to protection; and everybody has a right to live their lives free from persecution, harassment, terrorist activity and extremism. I felt genuinely sorry when she said that phrase. We are trying to support all members of our community, particularly the Jewish community. If she looks at the measures in the Bill, she will see they have been driven by allowing people to express their religion and for them not to be harassed or put into a box by people on marches and protests on a regular basis. That is what we are trying to do.

I understand where the noble Lord, Lord Walney, is coming from, but I wish for him to withdraw and not to push his amendment. We have a framework in place to deal with criminal activity and those organisations that cross the terrorism threshold, and to ensure through the social cohesion strategy that all members of our community have the right to live a free life in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, this has been an excellent and thoughtful debate, and I have been touched by the kind words and expressions of support from nearly all sides of the House. I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said, and I hope he knows how much I respect the work that he and the Government do, but on this occasion I am not convinced by his central assertion that the framework exists and is working.

The Minister raised the issue of Palestine Action, as so many have done across the Chamber today. It is indeed looming large over this discussion. Whether or not you take the view that the Government were right in proscribing Palestine Action, the fact that it took five years of this organisation committing criminal damage in a sustained and organised way before it was deemed to have met the terrorism threshold—which is now obviously being challenged, and I hope the Government win on appeal—shows that there is a gap. This gap is not filled by the public order measures which are used to place conditions on marches, which the Minister has cited in response as to why the framework is working. That is a different thing.

I am really pleased—and it is really unusual—to get such a broad expression from, reductively, the Conservatives to the Liberal Democrat Benches on a difficult issue like this. It shows that it is proportionate. I quote in conclusion the words of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, back at him. He has—reluctantly, I would think—come to the view that he will abstain, but he made the point himself that not supporting this amendment leaves on the table a choice between the status quo of doing nothing, or full terrorism proscription. I really respect his view that he would like to see encouragement of proscribed terrorist organisations taken off. That is a complex question, but if I had opened that up in this amendment, the whole thing would probably have been subsumed.

Therefore, it is right that we push this particular narrow change to the legislation. The Government and the Minister’s concerns can be tightened up after this, when the Bill goes into ping-pong. Then, we can deal with the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, in the shortest order after that. With that all having been said, I would like to test the opinion of the House on this matter.

Counter-Extremism Strategy

Lord Walney Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, I add my gratitude and congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, on not only securing this debate but on his continued leadership on this issue. I shall conclude the Back-Bench contributions to this debate with two key questions for the Minister.

The first stems from the confusion, which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, set out so eloquently, over the Government’s position on a definition of counterextremism. Can the Minister confirm that the focus on attacking democratic institutions and democratic values, which was written into the last definition produced by the previous Government, is still in this Government’s remit on tackling counterextremism? Following on from that, do the Government believe that we should be seeking a legal way to bar public funding to any organisation that demonstrates or promotes extremism or seeks to systematically undermine our democratic values and institutions?

Secondly, related to that, will the Government—the Minister can speak for the Labour Party—set a political lead by pledging not to engage with institutions that seek to systematically undermine our representative democracy rather than to engage with it? This second question echoes much of the concern expressed today around whether the Government will adequately acknowledge and lead in countering Islamist extremism as part of a wider extremist strategy.

I draw the attention of the Minister and noble Lords to the document released by the Government in December last year, entitled Antisemitism: Recent Government Actions and Next Steps. In that document, the Government say that we must be bolder in “calling out … hateful ideologies”. That is absolutely the case, but I think noble Lords might be able to guess the number of times Islamist extremism is mentioned in that entire document. It is zero. So many parts of our society, not only the Jewish community but across society, are looking at the Government to make tackling Islamist extremism, the biggest driver of extremism in our country, in my view, publicly central to a cross-government, cross-departmental effort to keep our citizens safe.

Police Reform White Paper

Lord Walney Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Environment Agency currently has a role in managing waste crime, but I think it is important that we put some focus on the fact that it has become increasingly clear, and this is a relatively new phenomenon, that serious organised crime is behind many of the large illegal waste dumps around the country at the moment. Our effort to improve performance will involve regional and national police forces, regional organised crime units, serious crime, nationally, and the National Crime Agency, over time, to look at how better we can tackle serious organised crime on a UK-wide basis, with support from the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Serious organised crime now manifests itself in illegal waste tips and could manifest itself in drug importation, weapons importation or a range of other things. The key thing is that we have some national co-ordination of regional crime units and national units to look at serious organised crime.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

The reforms to public order policing in the White Paper are welcome, in particular the commitment to greater data sharing between forces to enable this. Can the Minister confirm that that will include a greater level of intelligence sharing, which was one of the gaps that I found in my review of this wider area that was presented in 2024?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I can give the noble Lord that assurance. One of the things we are trying to do is to improve the IT systems and bring them under central control. That means improving data sharing and it also means using new technology, such as AI, to improve analysis of data and to give a central lead to performance measures, to get better outcomes for the community at large.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Walney Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th January 2026 Lords Chamber

I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that perhaps the Supreme Court on a couple of occasions has tried to give better clarity. The problem for the cops is that they do not easily understand how Supreme Court decisions and judgments pan out. That is why we have law: to articulate what the Supreme Court has sometimes made clear to itself but does not always make clear enough for officers on the ground. The fact that the court needed to remedy it indicates that perhaps there is a gap in the law that the Government might want to remedy now. This is a great opportunity to provide clarity, which I argue that Amendment 382H would do.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to commend the noble Lords who have brought this amendment. I add my praise and gratitude for Policy Exchange in having led the charge on this. I benefited greatly from Richard Ekins’s report in producing my own review, which was published in May last year. One of the recommendations of my review was for the then Government—it falls now to this Government—to set out a clear plan to move on and clarify after the Ziegler judgment. There have been a number of pertinent cases since then. The Court of Appeal’s ruling on the Colston statue case has, in my understanding, made it clear that this is not an unqualified defence. Nevertheless, it has left a level of confusion, for magistrates and for the police, over more minor but still significant criminal damage, such as spraying paint on statues or throwing soup over a painting. This situation is highly complex and difficult for the police and the courts to navigate now. Leadership from the Government and Parliament is needed to put the matter right.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I find myself in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Walney, and in particular I draw attention to the excellent work of Professor Ekins and Policy Exchange in this area.

As the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, observed in his opening remarks in respect of Amendment 382H, it is plain that the Supreme Court took a wrong turn in the Ziegler case. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, notes that a number of subsequent cases have touched on the finding in Ziegler and come to an apparently inconsistent conclusion, the most notable of those being DPP v Cuciurean and the Bristol Colston statue case. As the noble Lord, Lord Walney, observes, the Court of Appeal in that case found that the Ziegler judgment had prominently spilled over into trials concerning criminal damage. The Court of Appeal, in its criminal context, made it clear that the defence of lawful excuse was not available in that context, and that sits uneasily with the Supreme Court’s findings in Ziegler.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pre-eminent member of the Bar that he is, says that the law is tolerably clear and should survive with the embellishments of the subsequent cases. I am afraid that, in this context, for the reasons so ably set out by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan- Howe, that is not adequate for the purposes of either the protesters or the police.

In my submission, Amendment 382H is a model amendment, in that it is clear and brief, and sets out with admirable clarity what it is seeking to do. In particular, I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that it would apply, across the gamut of all offences which contain a lawful excuse provision, the words,

“the excuse must be a lawful excuse or … must be a reasonable one”.

There are many areas across the canon of criminal law that can be engaged with protest that may give rise to this, thus the application of this amendment would be wide-ranging and provide considerable clarity.

Amendment 382H sets out, in proposed new subsection (2), when it is no excuse, and does so with great clarity. I submit that the various judges trying these cases would be greatly aided when making decisions in summary offences and when giving directions to juries on this area in the light of this amendment.

Finally, in proposed new subsection (5), the amendment directly addresses the provision in the Human Rights Act, which takes into account whether or not this is the exercise of a qualified right and provides that this provision is necessary in a democratic society. It therefore sits happily with the human rights arrangements, so ably highlighted by the Minister in his closing speech on the last group. For those reasons, I hope that this amendment is brought back on Report. I, for one, will heartily support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strasburger (LD)]

My Lords, I will comment briefly on Amendments 382A and 382C. Amendment 382A amounts to the banning of protests in almost any circumstances at the behest of the police. Proposed new subsection (2)(1B) is particularly guilty in this respect, allowing, as it does, for a protest to be banned because, in the opinion of a chief officer of police, it would place undue demands on the police. But the police, as a public authority, have a duty to facilitate protests, not prevent them. Of course, that duty to facilitate protests has resource implications for the police, sometimes serious implications. That means that the police must be provided with adequate resources by the Government, but it does not mean that, as an alternative to proper resourcing, financial corners should be cut by the Government, thus making it impossible for the police to carry out their duty to facilitate protest. But that is precisely what Amendment 382A would do. It says that protests should be banned because the police are underresourced. It would be better if it said that the police must be sufficiently resourced to allow them to facilitate protest. It does not, and for that reason Amendment 382A must be opposed.

Amendment 382C seeks to extend from six days to 28 the notice period for informing the police of a demonstration, but many demonstrations are spontaneous or are, by necessity, organised at short notice. In any case, the amendment would appear to not achieve anything, because this section of the Bill already contains a provision for late notice as soon as practicable, so there is nothing to be gained by increasing the formal notice period, unless the goal is to make it ever more difficult to organise a protest. Amendment 382C should also be opposed.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

I will briefly comment on the issue of notice periods for protests, because I have sympathy for the desire to create an ordered system where there is more notice for protests, although I struggle to see how it could be practical in some ways. But the main issue that I would like the Government to reflect on is the now fairly routine practice of the police disregarding the fact that many protests do not meet the current seven days. They may have their reasons, but they take a view to not have any form of prosecution for that. Even if they were to prosecute, the fines are relatively low and therefore not a deterrent. So any change in the notice period needs to be wrapped in with looking at the issue that this law is simply not being enforced at all officially at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Walney]

370A: After Clause 122, insert the following new Clause—
“Designation and restriction of Extreme Criminal Protest Groups(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations designate a group as an Extreme Criminal Protest Group (“ECPG”) where the Secretary of State reasonably believes that—(a) the group has as its purpose, object or practice the deliberate commission of imprisonable offences, including but not limited to sabotage, criminal damage, obstruction of critical national infrastructure, or serious public order offences,(b) such offences are carried out with the intention of influencing public policy, parliamentary debate, ministerial decision-making, or the exercise of democratic functions, and(c) the activities of the group create a risk of serious harm to public safety, democratic institutions, or the rights of others.(2) A designation under subsection (1) does not amount to terrorist proscription for the purposes of the Terrorism Act 2000.(3) The following are offences in relation to group designated as an ECPG under subsection (1)—(a) membership of a designated ECPG;(b) promotion of a designated ECPG, including public advocacy, recruitment, or dissemination of the group is materials;(c) fundraising for a designated ECPG, including soliciting or providing funds or financial benefit;(d) organising, directing or coordinating activities of the group;(e) providing material support, training, funds or equipment to the group where the person knows or ought reasonably to know that the recipient is a designated ECPG.(4) Any offence under subsection (3) is punishable on conviction—(a) on indictment, by imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or a fine, or both;(b) on summary conviction, by imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine, or both.(5) Before making a designation under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement of reasons, subject to the protection of sensitive information.”

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to move Amendment 370A in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Polak and Lord Goodman of Wycombe. I also intend to speak to Amendment 371AA in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Leigh of Hurley and Lord Mendelsohn, Amendment 378A in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and Amendment 380 in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Polak, and the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee.

Several of these amendments seek to enact recommendations from my review, Protecting our Democracy from Coercion, laid before Parliament in May 2024 in my then role as the Government’s independent adviser on political violence and disruption. These remain an excellent set of recommendations that the Government are entirely free to accept at any point, notwithstanding the new review set up by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, which has already been mentioned a number of times by the Minister’s colleague.

Let me pre-empt his response and enable him to give a subtly different response from his colleague’s. He will say, or is probably gearing up to say, at the end of this debate that we must all wait for the review by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, to conclude and then wait and see after that. I gently put it to the Government that they have chosen not to do that themselves in one of the amendments that they have put forward on cumulative disruption. If it is good enough for His Majesty’s Government on that amendment, it is entirely within their power, and proper, to move on some of these other issues while the noble Lord looks at the wider picture. He has about 45 minutes—probably a bit more—to make up his mind on that, and I am sure we will see.

I will try to be brief. Amendment 370A, on extreme criminal protest groups, would create a power for the Secretary of State by regulations to designate an extreme criminal protest group

“where the Secretary of State reasonably believes that … the group has as its purpose, object or practice the deliberate commission of imprisonable offences, including … sabotage, criminal damage, obstruction of critical national infrastructure, or serious public order offences”

in order to influence public policy or democratic decision-making, and where those activities

“create a risk of serious harm to public safety, democratic institutions, or the rights of others”.

This amendment is carefully framed. It makes explicit that designation is not terrorist proscription, and it would seek to restrict membership, promotion, fundraising, organising and material support, with proportionate penalties less than those that a proscribed terrorist group would attract.

I think we can see a reason why this amendment—having this power available to the Government—would have been so valuable in recent years. For that, we should look at the example of Palestine Action. Now, there are deeply opposed views in this House on whether it was appropriate to designate Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation. It has divided the House, it has divided some of my friends with whom I usually agree on the vast majority of issues, and it certainly would divide the country. But I put it to the Committee and the Government that there would be a much greater consensus if it had been available to the Government to stop this organisation, which was avowed in its criminal intent and carried out criminal operations for a period of five years before it was eventually seen to reach the terrorism threshold and was designated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

This is a slightly delayed response, but I have just realised that the noble Lord was speaking to Amendment 371AA. I realise that there are a lot of amendments in this group, and there have been some changes in the groupings since the previous day in Committee. Amendment 371AA is in group 6. I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord’s flow, but I wanted to make that clear for the Committee.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

I will leave the clerks to unpick that mess. Forgive me. Does that mean we all have to stay incredibly late for group 6? It probably does, does it not?

[A noble Lord]

Yes.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

Oh good, that is such great news. Amendment 378A is not about shielding politicians from criticism but about ensuring that elected representatives, working people and members of the public can access democratic institutions and that those who work in and around them can do so without the fear of intimidation. There is clearly a divide in this Chamber on the kind of noisy, disruptive protest to which elected Members and Parliament are now exposed with increasing regularity. I think it is important that we draw a firmer line, and that the Government set the lead in this, in saying that engagement with the democratic process can actually be diminished by aggressive, angry protests, which implicitly can be a menace, a threat of implied force, rather than freedom of expression and making the views of individuals or groups known to their elected representatives, which there are myriad ways of doing in our advanced society.

Amendment 380 is related to the shadow Minister’s previous set of amendments on cumulative disruption. It is in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Pannick, the noble Lord, Lord Polak, and the noble Baroness, Lady Foster. This builds on the Government’s own amendments to put the principle of cumulative disruption more clearly into Sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act, which is welcome. It has been shown to be necessary by the detrimental impact, primarily on Jewish communities, since the Gaza conflict. Many Jewish people have felt intimidated from coming into central London and other places by regular marches and have been beseeching the Government and the police to do something about this—not to ban protests, but to strike a better balance so that they are able to go about their lives and not find themselves in the situation where if a protest group, such as the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, wants to organise a march in central London every Saturday, then, in effect, many Jewish people find that area out of bounds.

It is welcome that the Government have sought to strengthen the ability of the police to place conditions on those protests, but Amendment 380 is necessary because when I, members of the Jewish community and other Peers discussed this with the Metropolitan Police in the thick of the protests, it was clear that its understanding was that that was simply about choosing one street rather than another or perhaps limiting the time, but did not give the ability to say, “You have already been in the centre of London on two Saturdays, so you have to pick a different day”, or “You have to give it a rest this Saturday. Come back the Saturday after”. Under Section 13, that would require recommending that the Secretary of State says no to a march. Therefore, the cumulative impact proposal from the Government will prove insufficient unless it is extended to Section 13 —the ability, on occasion, to say no.

Finally, and briefly—because time is marching on and the issue has been raised in a previous amendment— I turn to Amendment 382E concerning the cumulative impact on policing resources. At the moment, the police are not able to factor in the huge drain on resources that weekly mass marches have been placing on their ability to regulate a protest. Therefore, the bill is racking up to tens of millions of pounds. Bluntly, that is either being placed on taxpayers at a time of increasing fiscal scarcity, or it is going to impact on other front-line policing priorities.

Yes, absolutely, there is a right to protest in this country, but that right is qualified and balanced with other factors. I put it to the Government that ensuring the ability of the police to factor in their own depleted resources in making decisions on repeat processions would be absolutely proportionate. Going out on the streets in mass numbers is probably not the most effective way of getting your view across anyway, in my entirely subjective judgment. It is certainly only one of a myriad of ways in which we have the privilege in our liberal democracy to be able to get our views across. Ultimately, we can also choose to change them every election if we wish.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, I just wanted clarification on Amendment 370A. Am I to understand that, if this amendment had existed in law, there would not have been any need to use terrorism laws to proscribe Palestine Action?

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My view on this is, admittedly, from the outside; I had some access as the Government’s independent adviser on political violence for a number of years while this issue was being debated. But, yes, my clear view on looking at this is that you would have been able to place a restriction on Palestine Action much earlier in the process, which would have stopped or been able to inhibit much of the criminal damage. Crucially, it would have meant restrictions before they got to the terrorism threshold, and much of this controversy could have been avoided. I beg to move.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hain for having signed them. It will not come as a great surprise to the noble Lord, Lord Walney, that I have differences with his presentation. My amendments represent a compromise rather than the stand part objection in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, although I have to say that the stand part argument does have some attractions.

The first of my sets of amendments is on the question of “in the vicinity”. When discussing a different Bill in this House, the phrase “in the vicinity” was taken to mean within 10 miles. I imagine that that is not the intention of this clause, but it is imprecise. I hope that many noble and learned Lords in the Committee might agree with me that precision in this aspect of the legislation would be helpful and, perhaps, is even necessary. This is what Amendments 371A, 371C and 371E seek to address.

It is accepted from all sides of the Committee that the right to protest should operate in a free, democratic and pluralist society such as ours. It therefore behoves us that, if we infringe on that right, as this Bill clearly does, we do so with clarity in law—I apologise to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, but I do think that, in this case, clarity would help—so as to do the least damage to that right, particularly as, in my view, we must always seek to protect the Article 11 right to freedom of assembly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am sorry. He was sitting on them. I do not mean to defame him.

My noble friend of course went on to be Northern Ireland Secretary and therefore has some understanding of the need to balance rights—the rights of peaceful dissent but also the rights of people to go about their business, particularly in their homes and places of worship and so on. That is proportionality and precision.

This vice of vagueness with the concept of “vicinity” is mirrored in the concept of “area” for the purposes of cumulative disruption. As with the Section 44 provision that ended up being impugned in the Strasbourg court, “area” for the purposes of cumulative disruption is not defined, so we are looking at a very broad power here. I say to noble Lords, with all solidarity with their concerns about, for example, synagogues and places of faith and worship, that provisions such as these can be applied as much to a counterprotest as to a protest, and to one group or another group at different times. When we legislate, we need to have a mind to how these powers might be used in the future.

To those noble Lords who spoke of a new quasi-terrorist proscription but for groups that do not quite meet the threshold—

[Lord Walney (CB)]

Not terrorist.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

Not for terrorism but for extreme protest et cetera that by definition does not meet the test of terrorism but something less than that, I urge extreme caution. There is a reason why powers to proscribe have to date been limited to terrorist groups—that exceptional threat—and the reason is that guilt by association is extremely dangerous when you are dealing with broad communities, potentially millions of people, and protest movements.

I have no doubt that some of the activities by some suffragettes—and we saint them now; everyone in this Committee saints and canonises the suffragettes—would meet the terrorist threshold. But does that mean that we want to tar them all in the same way and suggest that the entire movement should be subject to proscription? I urge caution with that and with any amendments in this group that go further than is precise or proportionate.

Defending Democracy Taskforce

Lord Walney Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know that, first and foremost, we are taking measures through the police and crime Bill to protect the homes of elected and public figures, even such as Members of the House of Lords, from that level of intimidation and protest. We will examine the allegations that have been made by Kate Hollern in relation to the activity in Blackburn. It is important that, for the sake of democracy as a whole, individuals are entitled to put forward their ideas free of intimidation and threat. There is existing legislation in place to tackle that. This matter has come to light just in the last week, so we will need to reflect upon it.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, there are indeed horrifying examples of abuse being directed at elected representatives. I was pleased last month to have been elected as co-chair of the All-party Parliamentary Group for Defending Democracy, and I urge everyone in this House, particularly the noble Baroness, to join and play an active role. Will the Minister pledge that he and his colleagues, particularly the Security Minister, will use the new APPG as a way of engaging with parliamentarians across the House on these vital issues?

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Walney Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

I understand the point from the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger. My only challenge is that I do not think it is fair or accurate to blame the police for that confusion. I would stand up for the police, of course, but it would be better of this place to acknowledge that dilemma without blaming them for exercising the powers that we gave them.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, the hour is late, so I will resist the temptation to go further into the rights and wrongs and logical inconsistencies of some noble Lords’ views on the proscription of Palestine Action.

I hope that I offer the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lords Strasburger, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, some reassurance that, in my view, they do not necessarily need to put Amendment 371 on the statute book or even wait for the review lead by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald. There is an excellent review into protest law, Protecting our Democracy from Coercion, which I was privileged to lay before the House in my then role as the Government’s independent adviser on political violence and disruption. The review covers this whole area. I am pleased that the last Government enacted some of its recommendations, and I am still urging this Government to go somewhat further. It may not strike quite the same chord, but it is there, and it has been done. Some of the recommendations from that review are related to this topic, but they will come in later groupings, so we will get to them when we do.

I will offer a couple of brief thoughts on these fascinating amendments. Many noble Lords have mentioned the balance here, and clearly there is one. It is probably true that the amendments from noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, take a maximalist approach. I am not sure that even I would go that far, and it might well prove to be unworkable. However, it is important for any legislator looking at this area to understand where the public are on this. If we talk about defending democracy, but so gratuitously ignore and act against the very strongly held views of the public on this, then we are getting ourselves into a very difficult place.

None of this detracts from the right to protest. I mentioned my own review, which was published last year. In that review there is polling, which accords with a great deal of polling done by other sources, that shows just how strongly the public object to and oppose disruptive protests. Big majorities of the public are in favour of the right to protest, which is reassuring, but, as soon as it becomes disruptive, they oppose it by a margin of about nine to one.

The proposed new clause in Amendment 369 raises an interesting challenge by explicitly stating the right to protest. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is, of course, right that this is unnecessary, in the sense that the right is already enshrined in other areas. Further, where the proposers of this amendment seek to draw the balance glaringly omits the issue of disruption—it completely omits it.

The prospect of avoiding all disruption in protests is clearly not realistic and would go against the point. But we are in an era when much protest is increasingly organised and designed to cause significant economic damage through the disruption of people’s daily lives, often preventing working people from getting to work. I am seeing senior trade unionists scowl at me for making this point, but I would just ask those who have been in trade unions to consider what it feels like for working people to be stopped from being able to go to their workplace and contribute fairly, and being intimidated and shouted at as they go through the doors of their factory or try to go through them and are blocked.

Any attempt to place a balance, whether it is on the statute book, or in an attempt to create new laws, or to shift that balance, which does not acknowledge the harmful effect of disruptive protests on the economy or acknowledge that these things need to be properly balanced, is destined to make very bad law and be intensely unpopular with the public.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I always try to be helpful to the House. I was not directly party to the issue with the Home Secretary and the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, about the time limit, so I cannot say with any certainty whether the Home Secretary said to the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, to do it by April, or the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, said that he will deliver it by April. If the noble Baroness wants me to write to her to make that point, I will do so.

The key thing at the heart of Amendment 371 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, is that it provides for the review to be undertaken within 12 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that the review we are doing currently will have been completed by April 2026.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

Many of us in this Committee would be absolutely amazed if the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, stuck to his timetable of being able to publish something next month. He does not need to take four years, as I did, but it is a ferociously tight timetable.

If you follow the logic of those arguing that people who were protesting in support of Palestine Action should not face legal charge, is it not the case that they would then have to say that support for any terrorist organisation, if it was so-called peaceful, should be allowed—so you should be able to peacefully give your support for Hamas or any violent organisation? If that is their argument they need to properly say it, because many people would have problems with that.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Walney, on that point. The right to free speech is extremely important, and there is no stopping the right to free speech about the issue of Palestine in any way, shape or form. If a determination is made under the Terrorism Act 2000 that an organisation has crossed that threshold, the Government have a duty to act on that, which is what we have done in this case. With due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, I just did not want to allow the comments he made to colour the position on a protest around Palestine. He can protest around that, but he cannot support an organisation that still has some outstanding court cases and has undertaken some severe action to date.

Muslim Brotherhood

Lord Walney Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, I say to the noble Baroness that the Government keep all organisations under review and make assessments accordingly. For example, as she will know, we took the difficult decision to proscribe Palestine Action. We keep all these matters under review. I cannot comment or give a running commentary on those issues from the Dispatch Box, and I know she would not expect me to do so, but I welcome her representations.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

What the Minister says on proscription is of course understandable; it has long been the practice not to comment before it is done. But will he reassure the House that the Government recognise the threat that the Muslim Brotherhood and related organisations pose to this country, not least in the way in which they have long sought systematically to undermine our democratic institutions in favour of their overall goal of replacing democracy with a caliphate?

[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.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Walney Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 16th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, having nodded along to those who complained about the length and diverse nature of the Bill, I am going to propose five modest additions to it, which in their entirety would take up less than an extra page to add to the 400 that the Bill already contains. These measures are related to the review I carried out in my capacity as the Government’s former independent adviser on political violence and disruption. The review had such a profound impact on the last Government that the Prime Minister called a general election 24 hours after my having published it, so this is the first legislative opportunity to enact some of these measures.

This is a timely moment. The Prime Minister rightly stood up after the Heaton Park synagogue murders and said that he would do whatever it takes to keep the Jewish community safe. There are a number of measures in the Bill that will help protect vulnerable communities and individuals, such as Jewish people, in this increasingly dangerous and intimidating environment and better balance the right to protest, which is indeed fundamental, with the wider rights of communities and individuals to live their lives free from disruption.

But it must go further in a number of key ways: first, on cumulative impact, where the focus of the Prime Minister and Home Secretary is welcome, looking at the harm that has been done to Jewish communities in particular from the repeated, weekly marches that have taken place, which have made many areas seem unsafe for Jewish people. The commitment made so far, which is to add cumulative impact into Sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act, already exists—unless the Minister can explain to me how it will be extended. The important thing is to add cumulative impact into Section 13 of the Act, which enables the police to recommend to the Home Secretary that a procession should not go ahead on particular days. Simply amending the precise route or the timing is not going to be sufficient. I do not want to go over my time, so let me race through the other measures.

Secondly, on protecting police resources, the Government should consider adding into Sections 12, 13 and 14 the difficulty of police being able to resource repeat marches and the effect that this is having on other key areas.

Thirdly, on protecting our democracy, places that are central to the functioning of our democracy, such as council offices and MPs’ offices, should have their protection strengthened, alongside the very welcome strengthening of the protection of places of worship.

Fourthly, there should be enhanced powers to tackle extreme protest activity. However anyone comes down on the recent issue of Palestine Action, it was a nonsense that it took five years of it being able to carry out crimes and advertise them for it to reach the terrorism threshold. I hope the Government will consider my proposal of an extreme protest activity order.

Finally, there should be clearer statutory measures to prohibit public funding going to bodies such as Kneecap, which received a public grant that could not be taken back by the Government, despite its promotion of criminal activity and its undermining of democratic governance.

Public Order Legislation

Lord Walney Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord will remember that, although the three organisations were put together, Palestine Action has committed three attacks that met the threshold set out in the very Act he mentions: at Thales in Glasgow in 2022, at Instro Precision in Kent and at Elbit Systems in Bristol—not to mention the recent situation at the airbase, on which I cannot go into detail because of ongoing legal proceedings. Palestine Action is encouraging terrorist action and working online to do so. There is a definitive difference in supporting a Palestinian state, which I happen to do, issues around the situation in Gaza, which raise real concerns for the Government and beyond, and criticism of Israel, which many Members of this House have made. These are all reasonable. What is not reasonable, under the orders of this Act, is to support the measures that Palestine Action has taken and is taking.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, if it was illegal noisily to call Israel’s actions a genocide then I suggest that many Members of this House and the other place would currently be serving time. It is not, as the Minister has said. He knows that I have supported the proscription of Palestine Action, but will he meet me to discuss my recommendation in the recent review that he is considering that much of this controversy could have been lessened if the Government and the police had had a mechanism to restrict the activities of this organisation, which was wilfully breaking the law and boasting about doing so, before it reached the terrorism threshold?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will happily meet the noble Lord to discuss his report and recommendations. What Palestine Action is doing now has reached a threshold. Its actions before were criminal; they could have resulted in, and are resulting in, prosecutions, which may or may not result in convictions downstream. The assessment that we have had to make, based on evidence that we have been given, is that Palestine Action has crossed that threshold. He makes a valuable point about how we examine the development of organisations, but the key issue for this House is that there is a threshold in the 2000 Act, which he mentioned, and the neutral assessment is that Palestine Action has crossed it. Therefore, as a Government, we have to take cognisance of that. If we did not and it took actions that caused significant damage or harm to individuals and/or property, which is very possible, we would be culpable for allowing that to happen. I will certainly meet the noble Lord and reflect on his points in due course.