Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, I have sympathy, as I usually do, with the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, but I will make two short points.

First, by removing the emulation requirement, inserted very deliberately in 2006, this amendment would criminalise the utterance of unpleasant viewpoints without regard to whether they have an effect. It would become a police matter to say that the IRA did what it had to do in 1918 or that the Tamil Tigers, currently a proscribed group, fought bravely in defence of their homeland. It seems to me that this would restrict the scope of legitimate comment and be a departure from the principle that we normally criminalise behaviour only when it is liable to cause harm to others.

Secondly, I heard what the noble Baroness said about Hamas and the St Patrick’s Day parade, but I wonder whether the purpose of this amendment is not better served by Section 12(1A) of the Terrorism Act 2000, inserted as recently as 2019. This already makes it a crime to express

“an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation”,

being reckless as to whether that will encourage someone to support it. If police or prosecutors are being unduly cautious in this area—I heard what the noble Lord said about that—they might usefully be directed to that provision of the existing law.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the names of my noble friend Lady Foster and others. It is right that we look to close the loophole. We need to look at how terrorists operate in the real world. The loophole that is there at present suggests that the current legislation’s wording is not quite fit for purpose.

I agree that the refinements made between Committee and Report are useful. First, I disagree that this would in any way restrict freedom of speech. Historic debate is to be valued, and I do not believe that this would in any way restrict that. The amendment focuses on the contemporary situation. Secondly, it is important that the position of the so-called lone wolf is covered—unfortunately, we have seen more instances of this: people who want to, in effect, wear the badge of a terrorist organisation but who may or may not be directly connected with that organisation. Whether it is in Manchester or in Sydney in recent days, we have seen the horrific situation of a radicalised individual or group of individuals perpetrating such attacks, and it is right that this is covered as well.

There are two principal reasons why I support this amendment and think it is necessary. The first, arguably the lesser of the two, is that it is dealing with the present. Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and probably like most Members of this House, I have not been a victim of terrorism or had a family member who has been. All of us in that position can be thankful for that. Where we see people eulogising past terrorist actions for their own purposes—drawing people into their organisations or their way of thinking—it is deeply hurtful to the victims and relatives, whether that is in relation to terrorist atrocities that took place in Northern Ireland, the Manchester Arena bombing or the 7/7 attacks. The presentation of those who perpetrated these attacks as righteous martyrs, and people purveying the view that there was “no alternative”, is deeply hurtful to the living relatives of the victims. That reason alone is sufficient to make this change.

The bigger reason is looking to the future, and this is where we need to get real as regards terrorism. Terrorist organisations are not some closed cell or small group of people who simply never change and who wither on the vine as time passes. For any terrorist group to operate and continue its activities, it requires the influx of new blood, time and again.

One of the things that I find deeply disturbing is that a number of young people are naive and are drawn in; they are not simply handed a gun or a bomb on day one and told to go out and take it with them—they are drawn in bit by bit. The way in which terrorist organisations operate is to gradually indoctrinate those young people in a dangerous ideology and even more perverse methodology and gradually draw them in. In doing so, they get those people addicted to their methods—and past terrorism becomes, effectively, the gateway drug. Many young people, if we were to mention the 7/7 attacks, for example, would have no memory of them: they were before they were born, and they do not see the consequences and the hurt caused directly to those families or the evil done in society. It becomes a much easier sell for terrorist organisations to draw people in on that basis, and to present those who carried out those hideous attacks as being some form of martyr or indeed role model for the future.

To that extent, I do not care whether we are talking about Northern Ireland-based terrorism, whether it is the extremism of those who carry out violence on behalf of some Islamic extremist view, whether it is far-right terrorism or whether it is a terrorist group that is effectively a front organisation for some foreign power. The reality is that we judge terrorism not by its motivation but by its words and actions. There is a real danger of young people being radicalised and drawn in, with the presentation of the evils of the past as potential martyrs.

The argument will go that if, for example, we needed to create a united Ireland by violence 40 years ago and it was right then, surely it must be right now; that if white supremacism was right 30 years ago, it is right now; or that if having an Islamic caliphate across the world was right 20 years ago, it is right now. All those ideas are repugnant, but the logic is that if they are being used by terrorist organisations, using this level of loophole as the argument to draw young people in, we have a duty to protect society but also to protect our young people and prevent them being radicalised. That is why I think this is an absolutely necessary amendment that will help to protect society.

[Lord Rogan (UUP)]

My Lords, I also support this amendment. We have heard mention of the IRA. Those who lived in Northern Ireland through the Troubles know that Sinn Féin/IRA was the most hideous terrorist group—reduced to “Ra”. Last night, after celebrating St Patrick’s Day, five young people came on to the Tube dressed with tricolours and shouting “Up the Ra, up the Ra, up the Ra”, which only means support for the IRA. I do not think those young people fully realise the hurt and offence that gives to the victims of Sinn Féin/IRA. I fully support this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to make a few points in this debate. To be fair, there is legislation that covers the glorification of terrorism. The problem—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and others have tried to make this point—is that it is not strong enough and does not do what it is supposed to say on the tin. If we look back at the case of Fusilier Lee Rigby, two people were convicted and jailed for that. In 2021 there was a conviction for encouraging terrorism and collecting information after posting messages. In 2023 there was another conviction for sharing a video of National Action, a proscribed neo-Nazi group. In 2024 someone was jailed for encouraging terrorism.

I do not want people to think that there is no legislation; there is, but the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, is trying to improve it, particularly for those victims. We hear, in summary, that the law allows for the conviction of people who glorify terrorism. The vast majority of the UK population has not been convicted of any offence and prosecutions require specific evidence. I also picked out from a report that, in the year ending March 2023, 169 people were arrested for terrorism-related activity. Only 46 were charged with terrorism-related offences and we have no idea how many were actually convicted. What we are trying to do here is to make things better.

I ask noble Lords to put themselves in a situation; the examples I give are live examples. There is a group of young people playing in a junior band and a busload of adults pull up who are coming from a Gaelic football match and they start singing pro-terrorist songs and chanting “Up the Ra”. What does that do for those young people who are out playing and enjoying music? I give another example. A man during the Troubles, because he was a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment, was murdered. That evening, his three young children and his widow were in the house and groups of people drove past in cars, cheering at his murder. Those were his neighbours who were doing that—cheering at his murder and shouting “Up the Ra”. Tell me that that is not an offence. If it is not, it should be. Tell that man’s widow, who is still alive, and his children that that is not an offence. If it is not, it should be.

We need to tighten the glorification of terrorism legislation. I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and I have to say that she gave some examples that are not akin to what we are talking about here. You cannot stop some of those chants and singing “The Fields of Athenry” or “The Sash” at a Rangers-Celtic match—and, by the way, that is not illegal, but there is a significant difference between singing that and going out to publicly antagonise people by shouting “Up the Ra”, “Up the UVF” or support for other terrorist organisations. So I support the amendment.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

Does the noble Lord agree that, as we saw recently, it is also the extent to which, if we normalise the sense of terrorism, it feeds into future terrorism? To give an example of this, when we saw the terrible shooting of John Caldwell—thankfully, despite horrendous injuries, the officer survived—and, a day or two later, the police arrived on an estate to arrest one of the suspects, there were a number of young people in that area who were cheering on not the arrest but the potential culprit. I suspect that they were doing that through a level of ignorance, but there is the seeping in of the idea that terrorism is acceptable to a new generation. That means that, while it is bad enough in terms of the memories of those who have gone through it, it is creating the fertile ground—

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I remind the noble Lord that interventions are meant to be short and to ask a question; his has gone on for quite a while.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

I was just going to say: fertile ground for the future.

[Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)]

Yes, I think it is very important that there should be no legalisation or normalisation of glorification of terrorism, or of terrorism in general. That is what we are trying to stop here—and what we must stop; otherwise, it will allow more radicalisation of young people throughout society. I am not talking just about Northern Ireland; we need to wake up and realise that it is happening here in GB as well.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, it is always an honour to follow both the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and the noble Lord, Lord McCrea. Their personal experiences—my family has not been directly affected—are a salutary reminder to this Committee that the choices that we make on this issue are not academic debating society-type issues. They are choices that have very real implications in the real world.

With the amendments in this group, we face a fork in the road. While two of the amendments may be very well intended, I say with respect to those who tabled them that they would take us down a dangerous and wrong road. The third amendment, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and others, would strengthen our opposition to terrorism.

Terrorists and terrorist organisations, whether they are. in a Northern Ireland context, republican or loyalist, or in other contexts Islamists, far-right extremists or a whole range of other bodies, do not just appear. It is right that we do not judge terrorism on the basis of its ideology, but on the basis of its actions. That has been the position that this House and others have taken when deciding on proscription for terrorist organisations. They do not appear simply out of the ether. No one becomes convinced of a particular issue and, that night, picks up a gun or a bomb and goes out and carries out a terrorist act; it is a long process. It is a situation in which people get converted to a position of extreme ideology and extreme action out of that. It is a position in which the message is that the particular terrorist actions that are being carried out are normalised. They are presented as the only alternative way to sort out a problem. A lot of that is based on the surrounding language.

The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, introducing this group, said that he did not see a distinction between somebody saying, “I oppose the Netanyahu Government” and “I support Palestine Action”. With respect, I think there is a deep distinction. One is expressing a political opinion and the other is supporting a proscribed organisation. In a Northern Ireland context, it is the distinction between someone saying, very legitimately, “I am an advocate for a united Ireland” and somebody saying “I support the IRA”. There is a clear-cut distinction and we should draw that distinction.

If Amendments 447 and 448 were to be agreed, we would create an absurd situation. We could have platforms where people get up and urge people to support ISIS, Hamas, the Real IRA or other organisations. None of those things are supporting an individual act of terrorism, but they are clearly drawing people in. They are, if you like, the gateway drug into terrorism. As such, we would create a very dangerous situation where we facilitate in particular young people from different backgrounds becoming radicalised and bit by bit being drawn into that terrorist world.

It is critical for the past, the present and the future that Amendment 450 is put forward. On the issue of the past, we know, and we have heard from the last two speakers, of the real impact on and the real hurt for victims of terrorism, from whatever source they come. When someone gets up and eulogises the terrorists of the past, they create great hurt for those families, whether in the situation indicated by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, or, for instance, if someone on a platform was to praise Hamas on 7 October, or refer to those who were involved in the attacks in 9/11 or Bondi Beach as some sort of martyrs for the cause. All those things are deeply hurtful to the families and the victims.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, 60 years ago Parliament passed what I think would be by common consensus one of the most significant pieces of legislation of the 20th century—namely, the abolition of capital punishment. The rationale for that decision was largely based on three principles that are difficult to argue against: first, that in a modern civilised country it was barbaric for the state to decide to kill its own citizens, even after a judicial process; secondly, that whatever protections or procedures were put in place with a judge, jury, tribunal or panel, it is made up of human beings who ultimately from time to time will make mistakes; and, thirdly, that when we are dealing with a situation involving the death of a person, the consequence of a mistake in those circumstances is irreversible. The clock cannot be turned back six months later when new evidence emerges, if that person is dead.

Those principles have held firm throughout the decades, which is perhaps why, in the 60 years since then, there has never been a realistic prospect of that law ever being revoked. But I contend that the legislation before us today reverses and repudiates all three of those principles, with the added expense of offering in return a false prospectus of a painless, easy death.

If this legislation passes, the state will have control over who is eligible for assisted suicide and control over how that is done, and it will ultimately be administering the killing of the individual. Whatever procedures we put in place, the panels will make mistakes. We know that the prognoses that doctors make, no matter how qualified or specialist they are, cannot be got right all the time. But what worries me most is the issue of coercion. This is not simply an academic or hypothetical question. Sadly, we have seen too many cases over the years, particularly those resulting in the tragic deaths of partners or children, in which it has then emerged at a later stage that there were years of abuse and coercion. The reality is that coercion is not easy to spot because it happens behind closed doors. It can be blunt and aggressive, but it can also be sophisticated and subtle—a drip-drip message to a person that they are a burden on their family.

The reality is that even beyond the coercion that comes from others, there is a risk in this legislation of what I would call self-imposed coercion, whereby a person decides or convinces themselves that the burden that they place in terms of caring and financial responsibilities means that they feel compelled to make the supreme sacrifice for their family. As with capital punishment, if we get it wrong on an issue of coercion, we cannot look back six months or a year down the line and reverse that decision.

Finally, to use a classical analogy, today we cross over not only the River Styx but the Rubicon if we accept this legislation. Some of the proponents of this legislation are already saying that it is the first step. We have seen that happen in country after country, perhaps less in a direct change of the law and more in change of practice. While I am sure that we have great faith in this country, we cannot be that uniquely arrogant to believe that we will be the one country where there is not an expansion of the issue of assisted dying.

This Bill, rather than being progressive and permissive, is cruel and regressive. This House should do the mature thing and reject it.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025

Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness and I certainly agree wholeheartedly with her final sentence. I too support a two-state solution, but I also support this SI and I am very grateful to the Minister for his clear explanation of why it is necessary.

I have to say to the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Jones, for whom I have respect—we have often agreed on other issues—that to say that this group is not engaged in serious violence baffles me. I shall just suggest to noble Lords an incident from last August when Palestine Action used a repurposed prison van to smash through the perimeter of a research facility in Bristol. Of the security personnel who tried to intervene to stop them attacking the buildings, one was hospitalised with head injuries, two policemen who came along were attacked with sledgehammers and one ended up in hospital. So, when the Minister describes the tests for terrorism as being, one, to advance an ideological or racial cause, two, the intimidation of the public, and three, serious violence or serious damage to property that endangers life, I struggle to see how those examples do not meet the requirements for terrorism.

I am grateful to the Government for acting swiftly to try to prevent people actually being killed, rather than endangering their lives.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, like others, I had not really intended to speak in this debate, but unfortunately, I have listened at times—while I respect other views—with incredulity at some of the remarks that have been made. This House rightly has a reputation for a wide range of expertise on almost every aspect of public life we can think of. It is often a pleasure to come here and listen to Members who have such in-depth knowledge on a great range of subjects; it is a true education in that regard. But I say, perhaps humbly, that I come from the part of the United Kingdom that has suffered most from terrorism throughout our lives. Sadly, for those of us from Northern Ireland, if there is one thing we have gained knowledge of through our lived experience, it is to know a terrorist organisation and to recognise one whenever we see it.

The Minister is absolutely right: we judge terrorism not by ideology but by actions. There are many organisations whose views I disagree with. There are many organisations out there whose views I find repugnant. All three of these organisations are ones whose ideology I would not find any particular favour with, but that is not a reason to ban them. We judge them by their actions, by their violent conduct, by their disregard for or indeed targeting of human life, by their intimidation, by the damage they cause. This is not just, as was indicated by some, a one-off incident carried out by a few rogue members; we have seen from the information the Minister gave that all these organisations have systematically organised over a long period a wide range of activities which collectively meet the threshold of terrorism.

Rightly, we defend the right to protest and to peacefully protest. Freedom of expression and the opportunity to voice very unpopular views are rightly ones that we should cherish. But when you move towards violent systematic attacks on society, as has been done by all three of these organisations, you cross the line into terrorism. For me, terrorism is terrorism. We go down a dangerous path if we start creating gradations of terrorism and, for example, we see some terrorists as “real terrorists”, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, with the implication that some are lesser terrorists, mild terrorists or terrorists with whom we have some sympathies for their ideological position.

If the argument being made is that the threshold has not been met, what is the threshold? Do we wait until incidents happen in this country that result in a string of dead bodies? Is that really the test we are putting forward? The only solution is that once you have crossed the line, this House and this Government rightly need to show zero tolerance towards terrorism. That is the approach that we as a House should unite around. I therefore strongly support the actions of the Government on all three organisations.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I compliment the Minister for summarising the situation, because no one has done so yet. The question seems to be, as has been so ably put by so many people, the difference between criminal activity and terrorism. There is a general acceptance that the actions of Palestine Action are criminal in all cases. The question we are really asking is, does it cross over into terrorism? I think it does, although I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said about the things that follow from such a proscription, which is something we need to be careful about.

The issue I raise, following on from other noble Lords, is the actions against businesses that had no reason to be acted against. In May this year, Palestine Action claimed responsibility for an attack on a Jewish-owned business in north London. The glass front of the building was smashed and the floor defaced with red paint and slogans including “Drop Elbit”—Elbit being a defence manufacturer. The attack can be classified as antisemitic under the IHRA definition as the business is solely Jewish, as I am. It has no links to Elbit or to Israel, and the actions suggest that Palestine Action held the owners responsible for Israel’s actions.

This is where the difference between purely criminal actions and terrorism starts. Palestine Action is a recruiting agent for the actions that have happened. I defend to the end anyone’s right to belong to any organisation supporting Palestine, the Palestinians, Israel or anybody. That is their right, and in our democracy, we have the right to give that support. For anyone who is currently a supporter of Palestine Action, if it is proscribed, there are plenty of other organisations they can join to push their points that are not points of violence. It is the violence that pushes it into terrorism, and I support the Government on this issue.