Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

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

My Lords, I expressed some doubt in Committee about the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Foster. I recognised the strength of feeling around the House in favour of her position, forcefully expressed, then as now, by the noble Lord, Lord Weir, and others, in connection particularly with past events in Northern Ireland but relevant to terrorism in all its forms. The noble Baroness pointed particularly to antisemitic terrorism allegedly arising from events in the Middle East but in reality entirely unconnected with those events, as with the Bondi Beach attack, which she instanced.

I was, however, concerned in particular by the possibility that the amendment as originally drafted would penalise the glorification of acts of historical terrorism that are or might now be recognised as freedom fighting, despite the methods adopted to express them and fight for a cause or viewpoint. For example, the struggles of the ANC and Nelson Mandela might be categorised as terrorism by some, and those who celebrate their struggles and their outcomes, now widely understood and approved, might be caught by the provisions. So might the actions of partisans and resistance fighters, which, again, we now celebrate and applaud because they were struggling against dictatorships. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, has recognised those concerns and redrafted her amendment so that her proposed new subsection (2)(a) requires that a statement

“relates to one or more organisations which are at the time of the statement proscribed as terrorist organisations”.

Section 1 of the 2006 Act criminalises statements that are

“likely to be understood … as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement … to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism”.

Under Section 1(3), such statements include any statement that

“glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences”,

and there follows the emulation requirement that this amendment is designed to remove. It is only that requirement that the amendment is designed to remove, it is a narrow amendment in that sense, but that analysis suggests that perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, went too far in her speech opposing this amendment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in his suggestion that that was the case.

Of course, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that it is only part of the picture, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, also said, and that changing the narrative among young people is the crucial challenge, but removing the emulation requirement may help. Proposed new subsection 2(b) in the amendment would pose two alternative routes to conviction. The first would remove the emulation requirement at paragraph (a) but applying the glorification offence only to statements relating to currently proscribed terrorist organisations. The second, at paragraph (b), which is an alternative, would replicate exactly the existing offence at Section 1(3)(a) and (b), the glorification with the emulation requirement. It could be a cause for concern—and I listened with care to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson—but because it replicates the existing offence that has been on the statute book since 2006, and the emulation requirement includes a reference to existing circumstances, that seems to me to be a safeguard.

We have concluded that the newly defined offence is carefully drawn; we accept the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, that the glorification offence, restricted to already proscribed terrorist organisations, does not need the emulation requirement; and we accept that that requirement is difficult to prove. Therefore, if the noble Baroness chooses to divide the House, we will support the amendment.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I think it is important to look at this not just from an Irish point of view; we have to look at the big picture. It is clear that there are different pieces of legislation that govern this area, and reference has been made to other pieces of legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, said, we are on Report and moving toward Third Reading, so there is an opportunity here. If the Government have particular difficulties with this, they have heard the mood of the House. I have no doubt that they can take that on board, and if there is something that they are not comfortable with in the drafting of this amendment, they can bring forward their own.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the amendments in this group—there are quite of lot of them—and the topics that have been raised.

To begin, I reiterate the critical importance of our counterterrorism framework, including proscription, in protecting the public; that is what this is about. I say in response to a number of comments by noble Lords that yes, we always keep the framework under review. As was mentioned in the debate, some organisations have been deproscribed as a result of government examination, and we are held to critical independent oversight, provided by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation.

Let me address each of the amendments in turn. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti’s Amendment 420 aims to limit proscription orders to a single organisation per order, ensuring that each group is debated and voted on separately. That has had support today from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and others. I understand my noble friend’s intention. I just say again to them—and to the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger —that Palestine Action was proscribed, along with the other two organisations, according to exactly the same test under the Act that allows proscription to take place. The exact same test was applied to each of those organisations.

In July, those orders were put together in one vote for the purpose of the effective use of parliamentary time. We had a big debate in both the Commons and this Chamber, and there was no underhand purpose in doing that. As I said to the Committee at the time, multiple organisations have routinely been proscribed at the same time, according to the circumstances of the time. That is my “We’ve always done it this way” defence, but we have in fact always done things this way, under every political party in government to date.

There will be instances in future when it is again necessary for organisations to be packaged together for a proscription debate. I understand the purpose of the point made by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. I have discussed this matter with my colleagues who deal with these matters in the House of Commons. I want to reflect on it, but I ask my noble friend to allow us the time to do so, because I do not believe that such legislation should tie the hands of the Government in how they approach proscription. Let us reflect on these sensible points in order to allow a single debate and independent votes. I will leave it at that for the moment.

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

I have one question for the Minister. The statutory test that is said to have been applied in the House of Commons is the statutory test of proscription. If Members differed on the result of the statutory test in respect of the three different organisations, they were not given any opportunity to distinguish between them. That is the position, is it not?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I accept that. As I have said, the “We’ve always done it this way” test has been put to me. I am saying to my noble friend that there are valid points that potentially need examination, but I do not believe that legislating to tie the Government’s hands on this issue is the way forward. I say to my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that there is a discussion to be had about how future proscriptions are brought forward, and we intend to reflect on those points.

Amendment 422DA in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, aims to prevent any challenges in court on these matters. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, summed up the Government’s objection, and I support what he said. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, re-emphasised those points, and I do not wish to add to what he said. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, might expect me to say, I cannot comment on an existing, live, legal examination of the Government’s reasons for that proscription. Irrespective of that, the amendment in the noble Lord’s name would remove all avenues of challenge, including those currently available under the Act. I do not believe that the Home Secretary should have unrivalled powers, even though, in this case, there is an ongoing court case, so I cannot accept the noble Lord’s amendment.

Amendment 422 aims to ensure that individuals can be arrested and convicted for active conduct before a group is deproscribed. Again, the position is clear: even after a group is deproscribed, individuals can be arrested and convicted for conduct that occurred while the group was proscribed. There is no automatic remedy for criminal convictions if an organisation is deproscribed.