King’s Speech

Lord Goodman of Wycombe Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

My Lords, the antisemitism emergency, as the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation has described it, and the balkanisation problem of ethnic and religious division—perhaps I should say balkanisation crisis—has haunted today’s debate on the King’s Speech and clearly concerns this House deeply. Plainly, we need a more developed cohesion policy, integration policy and security policy, including stricter border controls, deportations and much swifter trials. We look forward to seeing the detail of the national security Bill and the tackling state threats Bill. However, we also need a far more developed counter-extremism policy, and I want to concentrate my remarks on what that might be.

We must at the start be able to identify the problem in order to defeat it. A key driver of the antisemitism emergency here and abroad is Islamist actors linked to Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and our enemies abroad who lurk in the twilight zone between normality and terror. The first requirement of a counterextremism policy is to shine a spotlight on them—in other words, to name them in the annual state of extremism report proposed by the Government. That will require changes to libel law. The Government could usefully combine them with the action against SLAPPs that Ministers have promised. The annual state of extremism report can then be converted into a rolling register. No individual, group or organisation on that register should be consulted by Ministers or officials, be patronised by government or receive a penny of public money.

That is just the start. The Government should apply to the extremists the approach deployed in education reform by successive Conservative, Labour, coalition and other Governments: inspections on the Ofsted model, accompanied by fines, prosecutions and an enhanced right to sue. Are Jewish or other students harassed in universities? Encourage the Office for Students to issue fines and, if necessary, hold the authorities personally liable. Are Jewish, Israeli or other artists the victims of silent boycotts? Create a new ombudsman who can probe complaints and issue fines—and so on, throughout the public sector and, where necessary, in the public square.

I make three other quick points. First, in the wake of the forthcoming review from the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, we need to adopt the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, already mentioned in this debate, in relation to cumulative marches and static protests. The deliberate targeting of synagogues in these marches must end. Secondly, where is the action we have been promised to extend the Charity Commission’s powers to suspend trustees and shut down charities involved in extremist abuse? Thirdly, this programme will only be fully effective when we overhaul our human rights frameworks.

Extremists do not win because most people vote for them; they win if most people stay silent because they do not want any trouble, and when democratic politicians lack the will or the wit to produce a plan. Government cannot do everything. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, pointed out earlier, this crisis is a challenge for the whole of civil society. However, government can do something. It needs a plan. This is a plan—or at least the start of one. I commend it to the Government, to my own party and to all other democrats with the wit and the will to act.