Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Butler-Sloss Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Lords Chamber

I simply say to the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, that there is a procedure to undertake proscription. We are not going to comment on the IRGC, and we are not going to give a running commentary. If we decide, at any time, to proscribe any organisation, we will bring that forward. To have a procedure that is different from that is not helpful to the process.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I come at this from a somewhat naive point of view perhaps, but I cannot understand, having heard the Minister, why on earth the Government have not done it already.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, if I answered that question, I would stray into the very issues that I do not wish to talk about, because they are issues which we have to keep under consideration. I will say to the noble and learned Baroness what I said in my opening remarks: we have sanctioned Iranian officials. We have put visa sanctions on Iranian officials. We have Iran under FIRS for registration of foreign interests. We have taken action, as is self-evident, in relation to the current crisis. I will not comment on those matters, not because I do not want to but because whatever I say on them gives an indication of what the Government might wish to do at any particular time on any particular topic, and it is not right that we give a running commentary.

I say to those noble Lords who have spoken in this debate that I welcome their support for the government amendments in lieu. I hope I have convinced the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on his amendments relating to fixed penalty notices—I suspect that I have not—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will not push Motion D1, for the arguments that I have put.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Butler-Sloss Excerpts

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

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, we have heard harrowing evidence in this House on AI chatbots, including the tragic case of Sewell Setzer, a high-achieving child who was captured, coerced and encouraged to commit suicide by a companion chatbot. Today, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, gave another example. She has brought forward essential amendments to tackle this head-on by creating strict offences for supplying chatbots that produce harmful material, outlawing coercive design and holding senior tech executives personally liable. I pay tribute to her campaigning skills and absolute determination to hold these tech companies to account.

The Government’s response is entirely inadequate. They have replaced targeted primary legislation with a sweeping, open-ended Henry VIII power for the Secretary of State to amend the Online Safety Act via secondary legislation at a later date and a statutory duty to write a progress report by December 2026. The progress report will protect absolutely no one today.

Crucially, the Government’s approach focuses exclusively on illegal AI-generated content. It completely omits the harmful but technically non-illegal coercive designs that mimic human relationships and foster emotional dependency in children, and it abandons the principle of senior management liability. We need immediate ex ante risk assessments and clear statutory duties, not delayed reports and the convenience of executive powers. I urge the House to reject the Government’s Motion V and insist on the robust protections drafted by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, by supporting Motion V1.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, the Government are clearly very well meaning. They are very strong on discussion but weak on action. It is very sad that they should be so weak, and I strongly support the speeches that have been made so far.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

First of all, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who has been an indefatigable campaigner on this issue. I share the objective of trying to ensure that we protect children from chatbots, and I want to be clear that the Government share the House’s objective as a whole. We are aligned on the need to address the harms that arise from AI-generated illegal content. This is a disagreement about the question of what is the most effective and enforceable way in practice. The amendment in lieu reflects the balance the Government wish to bring. Our regulatory approach maintains a coherent approach under the Online Safety Act and reinforces Parliament’s ability to scrutinise delivery. For those reasons, I urge the House to support the amendment in lieu.

I know we are going to have a Division on this, but I hope that whatever the outcome of that Division, we can agree after it that this House is committed to ensuring that we protect children through regulation on chatbots. I hope the noble Baroness will not press her Motion V1, but if she does, I urge my noble friends to vote against it.

Southport Inquiry: Prevent Programme

Baroness Butler-Sloss Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is a tangential point to the issue in relation to Southport, but I assure my noble friend that both Houses of Parliament have passed legislation—in this case, banning Palestine Action. That is subject to a current court case. We have taken that decision on solid advice from security services, and nobody is stopping anybody protesting about Palestine, Israel or any other issue. Under clear proscription orders from the powers that the Government have, any terrorist-related item is banned. We made a judgment on Palestine Action that it is terrorist-related action. It is subject to court procedures at the moment, but I hope we can resolve them very shortly.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, while the Government are considering the Fulford report and what they should be doing next, will they have something and somebody in place to take decisions if this happens before they have completed their inquiries?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As I mentioned, we have established a separate working group of officials. They are looking not just at the recommendations for advice for Ministers but at the type of individual and at the incident that occurred. They will test with police forces and others why and how that incident in Southport occurred. That working group is looking not at the ideological issues but at individuals who are obsessed with violence, which was the potential motivating factor of the Southport attack. We are very cognisant that, pending the recommendations being examined and reported back on, any individual at any time can undertake serious violent action motivated by their love and desire to be involved in such action.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Butler-Sloss Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 25th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, I have great respect for the views of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. We understand where she is coming from. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, this has been democratically passed by both Houses. The very graphic descriptions of the physical aspects of abortion are intended to put us off, but those aspects apply to any abortion. Any abortion at any stage could go wrong and result in something very upsetting.

There is an assumption on the part of those who oppose this new law that desperate women will be reading the law in all its detail before they resort to what they do. I suggest that a woman in the very late stage of pregnancy, who has probably been abandoned by the man responsible for it and who has no support, is unlikely to take down the statute book and study what the consequences are. All this new clause does is remove the criminal element. It does not make anything better or worse. It just stops desperate, unsupported women going to prison.

Finally, as I always say in debates about abortion, it is all very well expressing great sympathy, but who is there when the poor woman on her own has to go home with a baby whom she cannot support? She is abandoned and unable to look after it. None of us here is going to volunteer to help her. We have to have compassion for a woman who is in that desperate a state.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I should have preferred that this particular clause had not been passed, but it was passed and we have to accept it. Following on very closely from what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has said, in my view it is time we moved on.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. We did not debate an impact assessment. We need a proper government impact assessment for this clause before it is made law. There are foreseeable consequences to taking down important guardrails within our abortion law for the sake of a relatively small number of people—

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Butler-Sloss Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, I add a few comments in support of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—but without repeating him—on the proposed ouster clause suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in his Amendments 421 and 422DA. The schedule of proscribed organisations is often added to and rarely subtracted from. At present it has about 98 entries, if you include Northern Ireland as well as the rest of the world. That includes a number of nationalist movements from around the world that are, or have in the past been, committed to violence in pursuit of their aims.

Despite the recommendations of successive Independent Reviewers of Terrorism Legislation, the annual review of proscribed groups by the Home Office and the NIO was discontinued in 2014. As far as I know, that automatic annual review has not been reinstated. There is no requirement in law that proscription should have to be renewed every three or five years, or indeed at all. In my report on the Terrorism Acts in 2016, at paragraph 5.24, I recorded the Government’s admission, which I found breathtaking, that no fewer than 14 groups on the list no longer satisfied the statutory requirements for proscription. Even more breathtakingly, they did not try to stop me saying it. There were almost certainly other groups in respect of which the same thing could have been argued, yet most of those groups remain on the list.

One group, the al-Qaeda offshoot to which the current President of Syria belonged, was recently deproscribed on the initiative of the Home Secretary. But if an application to the Home Secretary is turned down, it then takes money and determination to challenge a proscription in POAC—the tribunal that exists for this purpose. A handful of applications have been made by organisations that have definitively rejected violence, and these have been successful. With great respect to the noble Lord and without reference to the Palestine Action case, I am not persuaded that there is any good reason to block this necessary avenue for recourse.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I strongly support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. It seems to me entirely sensible, for the reasons set out so well by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and I agree very much with what he said about the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, that Palestine Action should not be proscribed. It is not that I have any sympathy with it—it is a deplorable organisation that does a great deal of damage. If in fact the other laws required to deal with such appalling organisations are not sufficient, the Government should bring to this House, as well as the House of Commons, stronger laws to deal with them. But it is not, in my view, a terrorist organisation.

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

My Lords, I will deal with this group as briefly as I can. I too support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. The idea that you can bundle together organisations and then proscribe them as a group seems ridiculous. Parliament should be faced with one organisation at a time when it votes—that is a matter of common sense. MPs must be entitled to decide on the proscription of particular organisations individually, and the fact is that many Members of Parliament resented being asked to proscribe three organisations together.

Of the three organisations, the other two—Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement—were plainly terrorist organisations that ought to have been proscribed, and it was invidious for Members of Parliament to be told that it was an all-or-nothing decision. That amendment should plainly be accepted. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that, try as he loyally might, when the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, spoke to this in Committee he could say only that this has been done before and is the way we have generally done it. That is no answer to the argument so elegantly put by the noble Baroness.

Turning to the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, I will deal with Amendments 421 and 422DA together. Both contain what are commonly called ouster clauses; they have been spoken to by the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, it is the right of the courts to pronounce on the legality of the actions of the Home Secretary. The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would, in effect, outlaw legal challenges to proscription, no matter how irrational, or what lawyers call ultra vires, or contrary to the evidence the proscription may be. An exception is suggested in the amendment: if a right to a fair trial would be totally nullified. As a test, I respectfully suggest that that is an entirely meaningless exception.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Oxford]

My Lords, I also support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others, and thank them all most warmly. They seem to me appropriately comprehensive and detailed. I have been following the developments in chatbots for a year now: they are massive, they are rapid, they are driven by the pursuit of profit and shareholder value, and not by the welfare of individuals, whether adults or children. There is a tsunami of harm coming towards us, affecting not only the most vulnerable but the whole of our society. We urgently need this kind of regulation and risk assessment for chatbots.

The comprehensiveness and detail in these amendments are simply the application of the precautionary principle to the development of new technology. Technology should not be unleashed on the world if it has the capacity to break people, to do harm and to infringe on personal liberty and well-being. We do not allow harmful technological developments without adequate safety standards in any other area. It is unthinkable that a car would be released into the public if it was at risk of harming them. Similarly, you would not put people on an aeroplane if there were a significant risk of harm. You would not even buy a washing machine if it could bring harm in your kitchen. Yet chatbots are released on the world to be experienced, in private, by young children, with all the ensuing damage. It is vital that this strengthening is put in place, and that it is put in place urgently. I cannot imagine how the Minister could argue against this series of amendments and their urgency today.

We need to look at the example that we set to the rest of world, both as a Parliament and as a jurisdiction. A few weeks ago, I took part in seminars organised by a research institute in a university; they had the aim of educating civil servants and government officials in good and safe governance of AI across the continent of Africa. The world follows the example that is set in this jurisdiction and others. For the sake of our children and for the sake of the world, we need to resist and make safe the development of this technology. I support these amendments.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, for the reasons that have been so excellently given already and, in view of the time, I support all the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I will also try to be brief. I completely support everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has said. I would like to draw out two arguments that have been made to me today as to why her amendments should not be supported and explain why they are wrong.

The first argument is that we should wait for an overarching AI Bill. We will be waiting for a very long time. Those of us who have worked in trying to regulate social media for the last 15 years know that we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I wholeheartedly reject that argument.

The second argument that has been made to me today—and I find this astonishing—is that the risk assessment is overly burdensome. We are regularly told that generative AI is one of the world’s most transformational technologies. That means it is capable of enormous good and enormous harm. The risk assessment in Amendment 433 is simply asking that the makers of these chatbots identify and understand the risks of harm—that does not seem overly burdensome to me. Further, it asks that the risk assessment

“is kept up-to-date … takes … account … of the Online Safety Act … assesses the risks to equality of treatment of individuals … assesses the risks to … privacy … assesses the risks … from the choice of underlying models, data sets …and … is in an easily understandable written format”.

I really struggle to understand how that could be overly burdensome. In fact, I would argue the absolute opposite: it is the basic foundation of decent regulation, and we should be wholeheartedly supporting the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Butler-Sloss Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 391 stands in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. In Committee, speaking to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, I raised the case of the police officer, Martyn Blake, whose case served as the perfect example of the difficulties of serving as a police firearms officer.

The Independent Office for Police Conduct, as is the norm, investigated Martyn Blake following a police firearms operation in London that resulted in the fatal shooting of Chris Kaba, and he was subsequently charged with murder. The case proceeded through the full criminal justice process and the evidence was examined in open court before jury under the rigorous standards of criminal law. After hearing the evidence, the jury acquitted him.

For most people, an acquittal, after an initial investigation and then a full criminal trial, would represent the end of the matter, but in this case, despite the acquittal, the IOPC indicated that the circumstances of the case would still be examined further in the context of police misconduct proceedings. The IOPC then reopened those proceedings, constituting its second investigation and the third investigation overall.

Whatever one’s view of the original incident, the situation raises the question of how many times an officer should be required to defend themselves for the same conduct. We have had restrictions and double jeopardy since the 12th century, but this appears to be triple jeopardy. Police officers can be investigated by the IOPC, referred to the CPS, dragged through the courts, acquitted and then reinvestigated. My amendment would amend the Police Reform Act 2002 to ensure that where a police officer has been investigated for a complaint or a conduct or DSI matter, prosecuted in a criminal court and acquitted, the same conduct cannot simply be reinvestigated by the Independent Office for Police Conduct unless there is substantial new evidence. That last point is important.

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 reformed the law of double jeopardy by permitting retrial where there was new and compelling evidence. I completely understand that if new evidence comes to light, the IOPC may need to reopen an investigation. There is a safeguard in the amendment to ensure the fairness of the police complaints system. I do not dispute the importance of police accountability; public confidence in policing depends on robust oversight, and the Independent Office for Police Conduct plays a vital role in that framework, but accountability must also be balanced with basic principles of justice. When the criminal courts have examined a case and reached a verdict, there must be a strong presumption that the matter is settled.

I know only too well that police officers make difficult and sometimes life and death decisions in circumstances that are fast-moving, dangerous and highly uncertain. They do so in order to protect the public. When something goes wrong, it is entirely right that their actions are scrutinised carefully and independently, but it is equally important that the process is fair, proportionate and finite.

I hope that the Minister will realise the harrowing mental burdens placed on the police and accept the amendment. All I am asking is for him to meet me half way and bring something at Third Reading or perhaps commit to bringing forward a proposal along these lines in the upcoming Bill on police reform. If he does not accept my amendment today and cannot give me an assurance about police reform, I will seek to divide the House.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

In family cases of sexual or physical abuse, someone can be tried and acquitted but then dealt with in the family court on very much the same evidence. That is partly because there is a difference in the standard of proof, which, in a criminal case, is much greater than in civil and family proceedings. Having said that, I am entirely sympathetic to this amendment.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot support this amendment, for two reasons. First, it imposes a regime which is wholly different from the regulatory practices in every other regulatory authority. For the last 15 years, I have practised exclusively as a legal adviser to regulatory panels, including for doctors, nurses, midwives, healthcare practitioners and social workers. In each and every case, a practitioner, a registrant, who has been acquitted by a criminal court can be brought before the regulatory panel to face misconduct proceedings. That is because the standard of proof is different: the criminal acquittal means that they failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the regulatory panel is entitled to find, on the balance of probabilities, that misconduct has been made out.

That takes me to the second point. Not only is it contrary to all the practices that we as a Parliament have imposed on other regulatory authorities, which I have identified, it is contrary to the merits. It may very well be that an officer who has properly been acquitted is none the less, on the balance of probabilities—the test within the regulatory authority—guilty of misconduct. I believe that that option should remain. I am very close to the position of the noble and learned Baroness, who draws from her experiences in the family courts. My experience is in regulatory proceedings, and what is proposed in this amendment is profoundly different from what we have imposed on the regulatory authorities.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Butler-Sloss Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th March 2026 Lords Chamber

I do not think the 50-metre test mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, would work. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, mentioned access and egress from a place of worship but, as importantly, the distance you need to keep from a protester is either throwing distance, shouting distance—so they can make their point and probably abuse somebody in the process—or away from amplified sound, which can be quite a distance. Given the geography of many of the locations where protests might happen, I understand the point about making it a discrete area, but 50 metres could never work and I think trying to determine the distance would be quite difficult. Vicinity can work, because it is a reasonable test. We should leave that for the courts to decide and give the cops the opportunity to make the decision based on the circumstances they face. I am afraid that 50 metres is nowhere near reasonable.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Can the noble Lord answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about Iranians protesting outside the Iranian embassy, scared for their relatives in Iran?

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

I avoided having that conversation, because it is a good point. I introduced my points by saying that if a decision is made to impose a ban on masks, a reasonable excuse may be difficult to enforce. I am not expressing an opinion on the noble Lord’s very good point about whether it would capture Iranians who might be in fear of their life from the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is a reasonable point and I am choosing not to express an opinion on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, I support Amendment 370 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Blencathra. Across this nation, war memorials, often raised by public subscription of pennies here and tuppences there, stand to hold memories of those who gave their lives—sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, cousins and parents. They are carved in stone, metal, wood or marble. The Whipsnade Tree Cathedral in Bedfordshire is a living memorial planted by Edmond Blyth, a World War I veteran, to commemorate his friends who were lost. They are physical embodiments of sacrifice, courage and collective memory, often within the curtilage of parish churches, each name both precious to someone and precious in the sight of God—ordinary people called to do the most extraordinary things in very challenging times. When they are damaged, it is a hit in the stomach for the whole of that community. It damages how we build our life together.

In recent years we have seen a great increase in younger generations exploring those names, finding out more about those people and giving their lives texture, colour and story. I have been very moved by going to a number of different exhibitions in parish churches across the diocese of Norwich that have showcased those often very young lives that were snuffed out in their prime in the service of this nation, so it is deeply distressing when memorials are damaged. Sometimes they are stolen for scrap metal and melted down, and the hurt that causes is immense.

I hope that these important memorials across the length and breadth of this nation can continue to serve as places to pause, reflect and think again, “Not again”. They are permanent reminders of the horror, destruction and futility of war. I hope that the Minister will accept the eminently sensible Amendment 370 for all the reasons that were so ably outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. If the Minister cannot support Amendment 370, I hope that the Government will support Amendments 372ZZA and 372ZZB.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I think it is very odd that there should be a distinction made by the Government between a memorial to Florence Nightingale and a memorial to Edith Cavell. That is purely an example that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, has given us. If that is so, what on earth is the point of the clause?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Parkinson for tabling these amendments that seek to ensure that our memorials of national and historic importance are afforded the respect and protection they deserve under the new offence created in Clause 137. As was noted in Committee, the offence of climbing on specified memorials was introduced to address gaps revealed by recent protests around war memorials, such as the Royal Artillery Memorial and, indeed, around the statue of our great wartime leader Sir Winston Churchill just outside this place. It was first introduced as part of the previous Government’s Criminal Justice Bill, and it is welcome that this Government have taken up the mantle.

Under the current drafting, however, only grade 1 listed memorials are specified, together with the statue of Sir Winston Churchill, but the list does not capture other memorials of equal national significance. As my noble friend has argued so eloquently, using grade 1 listed memorials does not serve a real practical purpose. It is much more about administrative ease. Why does Sledmere get two specified memorials but the Women of World War II Memorial gets no such protection? Amendment 370 would broaden the definition of “specified memorial” to include any war memorial that has been listed or scheduled, not just those that happen to be grade 1 listed.

That approach aligns with the fact that the significance of a memorial is not solely a function of its listing grade but of the history it commemorates and its role in national remembrance. Expanding the scope in this way provides a more objective and inclusive basis for protection and avoids arbitrary outcomes based on historic listing decisions.

Amendment 372 complements Amendment 370 by adding two memorials of particular national importance: the monument to the women of the Second World War in Whitehall, which honours the immense contributions of millions of women during that conflict, and the Holocaust memorial garden in Hyde Park, which stands as a poignant reminder of the horrors of genocide. Including those memorials recognises the breadth of sacrifice in the diverse stories that make up our collective history. I hope the Government will concede to this. If they do and my noble friend is content, so will I be.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, for all the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Katz, protests outside officeholders’ homes are in a special category. These amendments are plainly directed at harassing or intimidatory behaviour towards public officeholders, and they affect the families as well, so we are happy to accept these two amendments.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I wish to add how delighted I am that the Government have done that. It is rather overdue and will give some degree of satisfaction to at least some families of MPs in particular.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, in Committee I raised some strong objections to the amendment that the Government were proposing then. We were concerned that the proposals could inadvertently criminalise canvassing and leafleting an officeholder from a rival political party. We were also concerned about the proposed second aspect of the offence, which could criminalise making representations about a matter relating to the officeholder’s private capacity.

I still have reservations about the principle behind Amendment 371. I do not accept the Government’s argument that all protests outside a public officeholder’s dwelling constitute harassment. That is the stated view of the Government, but I think it is demonstrably false. If a protest outside a public officeholder’s home becomes actual harassment within the meaning of the law then that should be prosecuted as such, and if the protest breaches the peace or becomes highly disruptive then there are already laws to deal with that, but simply saying that any person who wishes to make representations to a politician about their actions or policies outside their house is harassment and therefore unlawful seems a disproportionate infringement of liberty.

Having said that, I am grateful to the Minister for taking our comments on board. The amendment that the Government have tabled on Report is much improved and far more tightly drafted, and I welcome that. Could the Minister confirm that the definition of a protest in the amendment will not include canvassing and leafleting or asking someone to sign a petition? I think we would all benefit from that being on the record. Given that the Government have listened to our concerns, while we are not completely content, we will not oppose this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 371A from the noble Lord, Lord Walney. As the noble Lord mentioned, the House will be very familiar with the problems that have arisen from the use of the power that the Secretary of State has to proscribe a terrorist group. The virtue of Amendment 371A is that it avoids any such description. It focuses on the severe mischief that we know certain groups are causing in our society.

Who could object to the Secretary of State having a power, by regulation, to designate a group as an extreme criminal protest group if there is a reasonable belief that its purpose and practice is the deliberate commission of the serious offences set out in this amendment: riot, violent disorder, destroying or damaging property, and interference with the use or operation of key national infrastructure? Surely the Secretary of State should have power to take action, particularly when, as the amendment requires, those offences are carried out with the intention of influencing public policy, parliamentary debate, ministerial decision-making or the exercise of democratic functions, and they create a risk of serious harm to public safety, democratic institutions or the rights of others.

We all support the right to protest, but there are limits, and these clearly are breached by deliberate conduct the purpose of which is to act in the way set out in the tightly drawn amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Walney. As he has pointed out, he has avoided in his drafting the real problem that has arisen in the Palestine Action case: that people are criminalised by reason of support for that body. That has caused problems. The Court of Appeal case is pending, but this amendment avoids those difficulties.

So I support this. I hope the Minister will not tell the House that this is not the time and that we should wait in particular for the report of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven. I too have the highest regard for him, but we should bear in mind that, with this Bill, the Government have not waited for his report in a number of provisions relating to public order, particularly and rightly on cumulative disruption. So I say to the House: let us deal with this. This is a legislative opportunity; it is a pressing problem, and we should deal with it now.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, for the reasons given by the noble Lords, Lord Walney and Lord Pannick, I strongly support this amendment.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 419. It is rare for an amendment to succeed before it has even been moved, but so it appears to be in the case of this amendment, which would compel the Government to publish a counterextremism strategy. In Committee, I tabled a similar amendment, to which the Minister gave what was, in essence, a holding reply. I then obtained a Question for Short Debate on the same subject, to which the Minister again gave a holding reply. But it is third time lucky, for today, on the very day of this debate, the Government have published a counterextremism strategy—or rather a cohesion strategy of which counterextremism is a part—which I believe is being announced in the other place as I speak. So the timing appears to show, if nothing else, the power of your Lordships’ House. In saying so, I make no complaint: for the Government to publish a strategy at all is at least a start. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lords, Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Walney, who co-signed this amendment, as well as the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, our own Front Bench and other noble Lords who spoke in Committee.

The strategy will be carefully studied during the weeks ahead, and it is worth reiterating at the start the point that only part of it concerns counterextremism. It appears to contain, as one might expect, the good, the not quite so good and the indifferent. The good, for example, includes further action to bar preachers from abroad who incite violence in mosques. The not so good includes, to give the same kind of example, no specific action that I can see against preachers in this country who incite violence in mosques—I draw the attention of those who doubt this happens to the evidence regularly published on X by the activist, habibi.

As for the indifferent, there is the proposed special representative for anti-Muslim hostility. Some wanted a fully-fledged definition of “Islamophobia” claiming a basis in racism. Others wanted no definition at all. What we have is a halfway house, and I suspect it will satisfy no one. On the one hand, initiatives with faith communities, such as Inter Faith Week, are welcome—assuming that the Government and others know whom they are engaging with, funding or giving platforms to—and, on the other, plans to crack down on hate crimes, in the strategy’s own words, are problematic. The distinction between inciting violence and defending free speech is difficult to draw, but it is vital.

But on balance I want to, in the words of the old song, accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative. It is welcome that the strategy confirms the last Government’s definition of “extremism”, which, though not perfect, identifies its core characteristic: ideologies that aim to

“undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights”.

It is also welcome that the strategy recognises clearly and unequivocally that, although Islamist extremism is very far from being the only challenge of this kind, it is the predominant form, responsible for three-quarters of the workload of Contest and 94% of all terror-related deaths in the past 25 years. The challenges we must confront are terrorism at worst and balkanisation at best, with our United Kingdom divided up in living practice, if not constitutional fact, into ethnic and religious enclaves. The precedent of Northern Ireland during the Troubles is not encouraging, and I am sure that none of us want to see that.

So, if the strategy is to work, much will hinge on a single word: implementation. Can the Government see the best of it through? If the strategy is to be coherent—applied to out-of-school settings, schools, universities, the NHS, prisons, police, charities, civil society and government itself—three essentials are required. The first is clarity, authority, and strength at the centre. The way our governmental system works, for better or worse, is that, until or unless No. 10 wants something to happen, it will not happen, and even then it may not. The strategy proposes a new interministerial working group and regular reporting to the Prime Minister. This is an admirable aim, but I fear it will not cut the mustard. What is required, rather, is a Cabinet Minister—the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster or perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister—who is charged with responsibility for delivering the strategy and who speaks and acts with the Prime Minister’s authority. I regret, in passing, the apparent non-replacement of Robin Simcox as the Commissioner for Countering Extremism.

Secondly, the strategy needs to work not only at the centre of government but throughout the country, in civil society and local communities. The closer the state is to local communities, the easier it is, in pursuit of a quiet life, to engage with, fund and work with extremists. If noble Lords want an example, they need look no further than the horrifying recent developments in Birmingham, where the West Midlands Police bowed to an extremist mob over a football game, conjured up evidence that does not exist to justify its decision and then, in the words of Nick Timothy, “lied and lied again” about its actions, including to Parliament. Three of the eight mosques that the West Midlands Police consulted over its decision had hosted preachers who promoted conspiracy theories or called for the death of Jews. I am a localist by temperament, but I suspect that Westminster and Whitehall will need strong powers of intervention.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Butler-Sloss Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th February 2026 Lords Chamber

This is presumably why I understand the Government to be considering expunging existing child criminal records—a laudable aim. However, surely prevention is better than cure. We can prevent this expensive misery entirely by raising the threshold to 14, sparing thousands of children the corrosive and insidious effects of the criminal justice system and instead giving them the space to develop into wiser young people. I beg to move.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I put my name to this amendment and I agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has said. This is the third time that I have tried to raise the age of criminal responsibility in this House. I tried first in the Blair Government and lost. I tried the second time in the coalition Government and lost. On each occasion, I asked for a modest increase, to 12. I would be content with 12, but I would naturally prefer 14. It is very sad, but I just wonder whether every Government, of whichever political persuasion, are so afraid of the press and the press headlines that they are not prepared to change the law. Some years ago, the four children’s commissioners of the United Kingdom wrote a joint report in which they said that the United Kingdom is the most punitive country in the whole of Europe. That has not changed.

I tried two relevant cases: the first was on the anonymity of the Bulger killers, aged 10; the second was Mary Bell, aged 10. I do not know whether noble Lords know that the two Bulger killers, aged 10, had found a pornographic video hidden under the bed of the father of one of them, and they watched it. It was a story of how to kill a small child after painting the child blue. Those two little boys went out and did exactly what the film had shown. That seems to me to be highly relevant to considerations. It was an appalling crime; there is no doubt about that, but one does really need to think—as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has reminded us—about the maturity of the brain, which is not properly completed by the age of 10, and is only still partly completed by the age of 14. There is substantial evidence that one Government after another absolutely refuse to recognise.

Ten is very young. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, let us think back to when we were 10—I find that particularly difficult at my age. One bears in mind one’s children or one’s grandchildren, how they behaved and the extent to which they really understood, not perhaps between right and wrong—I would hope they did—but the consequences of what they have done or might do. That seems to be something that is gained later in life than the age of 10.

One point that noble Lords might be concerned about is what would happen to a 10 year-old if they committed a really serious offence, particularly murder, with which I have been twice concerned. The fact is that Section 45 of the Children Act 1989 would send such a child who was a danger to him or herself or to others to secure accommodation. I am a patron of an admirable secure accommodation unit in Exeter. Every child in that unit has at least two carers, and some who are particularly troublesome have three. They are properly educated and looked after in a way that would of course happen to a child convicted of an offence; they would be sent nowadays to secure accommodation.

Mary Bell, however, was sent to prison. The very humane Member of this House, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, arranged that the Bulger killers should not go on to an adult prison; they in fact left at the age of 18. Noble Lords might be interested to know the reason why I gave anonymity to those two young men. I received evidence from the police, sitting as a judge, that there were vigilantes out there determined not just to injure them, but to kill them. There was substantial evidence that there were groups of vigilantes in various parts of the country. That was why I gave them anonymity. I ask the Minister to reflect on what the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and I have said: 10 is very young.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a genuinely interesting debate. The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, would raise the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales from 10 to 14. For the reasons I will set out below, I am unable to support it.

First, the purpose of the age of criminal responsibility has not been designed to criminalise children unnecessarily. Rather, it is to ensure that the state can intervene early and proportionately when a child’s behaviour causes serious harm. As the noble Baroness, Baroness Levitt, the Minister, stated in this House, setting the age at 10 allows the justice system to step in at a point where intervention can prevent further offending and protect both the child and the wider public, and, crucially, children are not treated as adults. They are dealt with through youth courts under a distinct sentencing framework with rehabilitation as the central aim.

The evidence shows that the system already uses this power sparingly. We are told that, in 2024, only 13% of all children sentenced were aged between 10 and 14, and that proportion has been falling year on year. Of the 1,687 sentences imposed on children in that age group, just 23 resulted in custody. Those figures matter. They demonstrate that the age of criminal responsibility being set at 10 does not mean routine criminalisation of children. It means retaining a backstop for the most serious and persistent cases while diversion remains the norm.

Raising the age to 14 would create a dangerous gap. It would mean that children aged 10 to 13 who commit grave offences—including serious violence, sexual offences or sustained harassment—could not be held criminally responsible. This would limit the state’s ability to manage risk, protect victims and, in some cases, protect the child. There are rare but tragic cases—

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord. Section 44 of the Children Act deals with children who are a danger to themselves and to others. The only difference in the criminal court is that it comes through the family proceedings court, but in fact the local authority would have to deal with it and the child would be put into secure accommodation. I wonder whether the noble Lord could take that on board.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Baroness for that. I do not dispute that fact; I quite accept it.

There are rare but tragic cases, such as the murder of James Bulger, where a criminal justice response is unavoidable and undoubtedly in the public interest.

I respectfully suggest that international comparisons cited in this debate are far from straightforward and can sometimes serve to confuse matters. In fact, certain countries are now moving in the opposite direction. Sweden, for example, is proposing to lower its age in response to gang exploitation of children who know that they cannot be prosecuted. That underlines a key point. If the threshold is set too high, it can incentivise adults to use children as instruments of crime.

It is also worth noting that, although Scotland recently raised the age of criminal responsibility, Scotland’s experience should not justify this amendment. Even after deciding the age of criminal responsibility should be raised from eight years old, Scotland raised the threshold to 12 and not to 14. The Scottish Government also retained extensive non-criminal powers to respond to serious harmful behaviour. This amendment would go significantly further without clear evidence that such a leap would improve outcomes for children or public safety.

It is worth noting that a number of Commonwealth countries retain the doctrine that a child is considered incapable of wrongdoing, which was abolished in England and Wales by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. In many of those jurisdictions, the standard age of responsibility is similar to ours. Australia, for example, has a standard age of criminal responsibility of 10 years old, but a rebuttable presumption exists up to the age of 14. However, I should also stress that, simply because other countries may have higher ages than England and Wales, that is not, in and of itself, a justification to alter ours. We must ensure that the age of responsibility here is suitable for our needs—

Asylum and Immigration: Children

Baroness Butler-Sloss Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I can give my noble friend the assurance that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is an essential framework which will guide both Ministers and officials in drawing up the appropriate policies to ensure that we look at the safeguarding, welfare and best interests of the child. My noble friend will know that the proposals about which she has raised questions are subject to consultation up to 12 February. She will also know that I have suggested to her that we meet to discuss those issues outside the Chamber. I look forward to both her response to the consultation and her representations at any meeting we have.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I suggest to the Minister that there is a very real danger that the need to deal with immigration puts the rights of children at risk. I was delighted to hear what he said, but I am not sure that is across every government department. The welfare of children is paramount, and the rights of children absolutely must not be imperilled by the need to deal with immigration.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Baroness. She will know that the Government have to deal with issues to do with both illegal migration and managed migration. The proposals we are bringing forward are doing that. We are absolutely, 100% committed to doing that within the framework of our United Nations responsibilities and under legislation that both Houses of Parliament have passed previously. I am happy to direct the noble and learned Baroness to the consultation on these proposals, which closes on 12 February.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Butler-Sloss Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

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

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

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


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

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister and indeed the Home Office might be forgiven for wondering why Amendment 438EA was necessary. One might have taken it for granted that, on the whole, if any important event was happening, those likely to be involved in it in the community would be consulted. However, I fear the Home Office needs to think again. We have heard already about Birmingham, where one of the largest police forces in the country speaks exclusively to the mosques. When the Maccabi fans were considering whether they would come to Birmingham, the police did not talk to the churches but, rather more importantly, they did not talk to the synagogues. If one stops to think about it, it is quite extraordinary. All that I have read and heard in this House, as well as reading in the newspapers, leads one to suppose that those considering whether those Jewish fans should be allowed to come were looking exclusively from the Muslim point of view.

The Home Office should therefore consider carefully, perhaps with the College of Policing, whether, when it comes to significant and possibly controversial events—or very controversial, as the Maccabi one was likely to be—it should tell police forces that they must find what all the local people who might be interested think about it, and take some advice. I am horrified by what happened. I entirely understand why the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, should have tabled the amendment, and the Government need to consider it with extreme care.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, as one of the vice-chairs of the APPG on Counter Extremism, I support the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in these amendments. He has already referenced the Time to Act publication, which was published late last year and deals with a number of statistics that are quite startling and deserve to go on the record today. It was found that one in five voters— 21%, actually—

“say that political violence in the UK is acceptable in some conditions, and 18% would consider participating in violent protests as the state of Britain declines”.

That is a very concerning thing to read. We know that there has been a nearly 600% rise in antisemitic incidents in the UK following 7 October 2023. We also know that anti-Muslim hate has doubled over this last decade. Those are statistics that cannot be ignored. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, outlined why she finds some difficulty with these amendments, but there is recognition in the report that extremism

“is one of the primary domestic security and societal threats facing the UK”.

When the noble Baroness was detailing some examples of extremism, the noble and right reverend Lord asked why people were not prosecuted. I would argue—and I know that the noble and right reverend Lord will recognise that I have an amendment later in the day—that the glorification of terrorism needs to be much more clearly defined in law. We will come to that later in the amendments. Defeating terrorism is not just about dealing with it from a military point of view but about dealing with the narrative around those terrorist organisations—“draining the swamp”, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, would put it. We are allowing glorification to continue on the streets of our country and then not recognising that extremism will grow as a result. I hope that when we come to debate that issue, there will be a good airing of the issues around the glorification of terrorism.

The first thing we need to do in this area is to recognise that there is a problem, and then to define the problem and move on to understand it and deal with it. I very much welcome these amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman.

--- Later in debate ---

We must close this loophole and face up to the situation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, said, support for terrorism should be wrong on a timeless basis. Terrorism was wrong. Terrorism is wrong. Terrorism remains wrong into the future. It is about time that the law caught up with that and implemented it to ensure that we have the most robust systems to counter terrorism through the law.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, Amendments 447, 448 and 450 could not be more different, but they seem to show two sides of the same coin.

Dealing first with Amendment 450, I entirely agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, has said. It is absolutely appalling that people should glorify terrorism in any way. We listened to some painful stories of what had happened during the Troubles. However, this is not a Northern Ireland issue. Having listened to three people from Northern Ireland, as an English woman who was formerly married to a man from County Down, now deceased, it is important to point out that this happens in the rest of the United Kingdom.

There are people in this country who support ISIS; there are people who support Hamas, and there are other groups that are not so well known that may well be supported. Whether it be the appalling acts of the IRA or the equally appalling acts of Hamas—whether the genocide is or is not does not seem relevant at the moment—there should be no glorification. I hope that the Government will listen to this, because, although it is promoted largely by those from Northern Ireland, as I have said already, it is equally applicable to the rather parts of the United Kingdom.

Looking at the other side of the coin, I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Weir. The sort of people who are going out on the streets, particularly in London, to support Palestine Action, could not be more removed from the terrorists and the people glorifying terrorism. A lot of very decent, naive—as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, called them—and, in many ways, foolish people are going out because they do not like what happens in Gaza. We get a great deal of coverage, rightly, about what is happening there. That creates a situation in which decent and very often elderly people are going along and behaving very stupidly, but they absolutely are not terrorists.

I wonder whether the Government were all that wise to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation. It is an abhorrent organisation, but I really do not think it is within the ambit of terrorism as we normally understand it—but we are stuck with it because it is now the law. However, that does not mean that everybody who is foolish, naive and stupid enough to go out on the streets, very often in bad weather, to yell out rather stupid slogans are themselves terrorists. I am not sure that it brings any praise on the country, and particularly the Government, to have huge numbers of these people arrested. What on earth is going to happen to them? We look rather foolish with this, and I hope that the Government might look with considerable sympathy particularly at Amendment 447, which is the one that I would support.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, I have listened to the noble and learned Baroness’s very fair presentation of the two sides of that argument. However, we cannot know, because we have no evidence, what the deeper, inner views may be of those people she referred to, who are leaving an event or a protest, or whatever. It is perfectly plausible that they may attend a demonstration but that their views are more extreme than those exhibited at the demonstration. I would therefore be a little bit cautious about not accepting that glorification is the door-opening to the more sinister motives that people can have. We know, from the extent of antisemitism that we have seen in our streets and from what is preached in mosques or liked on social media, that there is a fairly sinister trend in the glorification of terrorism.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I am very sorry, but I have not entirely understood whether the noble Baroness is disagreeing with me on Amendment 450 or Amendment 447.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

I think possibly a bit of both, but Amendment 447 is the one that I would disagree with her on more.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I find it extraordinary that glorification of terrorism can be supported in any way; it just seems abhorrent. In relation to Amendment 447, I am not entirely objecting to the police arresting people, because they may well arrest people when they are not sure, but if there be a great many people whom the police would recognise as not likely to be supporting terrorism as such, I hope that those people would be released pretty quickly from the police station.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

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

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

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

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

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

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