State of Extremism Report

Question

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they intend to identify individuals, groups, organisations, businesses or bodies in the annual State of Extremism report they committed to publishing in Protecting What Matters, published on 9 March.

The Answer to the noble Lord is yes. Where necessary and proportionate, the report will include examples of those propagating extremism and where they have been disrupted.

That is an extremely welcome Answer. Does the Minister not agree that the antisemitism emergency is being driven not only by hostile states but by hostile non-state actors such as Hezbollah and Hamas and their agents here? Is it therefore not essential, as he says, that the report names them to ensure that they have no access to public money, government platforms and—this is extremely important—engagement with public services such as the police? Is it not vital that they be isolated and shunned?

It is vital that those spreading extremism are tackled in every form by the state and by other parties. The Home Office will publish, as the noble Lord knows, the landmark state of extremism report by the end of this calendar year. We are delivering a fundamental reset of how we counter extremism and want to make sure that we have the tools, capabilities and partnerships to match the scale of that threat. The report itself will cover not just government action but the available support and powers on disruption, particularly relating to case studies.

My Lords, I have recently learned about and am deeply concerned by the Prevent programme, which has a voluntary participation clause. Can the Minister explain the criteria being used to identify young Muslim people, in particular, who are deemed fit to be “trained”? How are the Government ensuring that young Muslim people are not targeted and profiled, and that this practice is not forced down their and their families’ throats, as happened with young Black people during the stop and search period, which was a shameful time for many families and particularly for institutions?

The purpose of government policy and of Prevent is not to colour all Muslims as being related to extremist activity. The purpose of Prevent is to help identify those individuals who are vulnerable and at risk. That identification is done by social workers, support workers, police and other agencies. If an individual is vulnerable, the idea of Prevent is to help them have defences against that vulnerability so that they do not get drawn into extremism. The Muslim community as a whole should have nothing to fear from that process.

My Lords, I declare an interest as the director of the Free Speech Union. The issue of how to tackle extremism while preserving the right to freedom of expression falls squarely within the terms of reference of the review carried out at the request of the Home Secretary by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, which examined hate crime and public order legislation. Can the Minister tell us what has become of that review, and when it is likely to be placed in the Library so we can all read it?

The review has been received by the Home Secretary. We are examining its contents, and we intend to publish it before the Summer Recess.

My Lords, I welcome the proposals outlined in Protecting What Matters, namely, to tackle the abuse of charitable status for the purpose of promoting violence and hatred. However, phrases in the extremism definition such as creating a “permissive environment” for the destruction of “fundamental rights” are quite vague. If applied without further elaboration this could, as the charitable sector has warned, have the effect of chilling lawful advocacy, campaigning and community involvement. What progress is being made in producing and consulting on these proposals? Will the Government ensure that the thresholds are clear and understandable when they emerge, so that we all know where we are?

On the quotes mentioned by the noble Lord, I bow to his significant experience in managing these issues and I will certainly look at his comments. On the commitments set out in the proposals, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is looking at strengthening the Charity Commission’s powers to tackle extremist and terrorist exploitation in the charitable sector. There will be consultation and development of further powers on persistent misconduct, while ensuring that the power to close a charity exists and that the focus is on extremism rather than any other issue.

My Lords, given the recent incidents in Southampton and Belfast—in which individuals who appeared to belong to either the Black or the Asian community were particularly targeted for no reason other than what they looked like—does the Minister agree that social cohesion must now be a national priority if we are to tackle extremism in all its forms?

Absolutely. I condemn the incident in Belfast—an individual has now been charged, but I cannot comment further—and the actions that were taken in Southampton. People have the right to protest, but they must do so in a way that does not damage businesses, the community or police officers who are trying to protect the public at large. On 9 March the Government published a social cohesion action plan, Protecting What Matters, which sets out a number of points on our efforts to build social cohesion. We accept that we must do that, in order to ensure that everybody in our society has the right to live their lives and conduct their business free from political violence and extremist intervention.

My Lords, the Protecting What Matters document says that

“we must be clear that we are a society built on shared values”.

Do the Government accept that Britain is about far more than just shared values? Social cohesion relies upon a shared sense of belonging and a common culture. This requires those who move to Britain to integrate into our society and live according to British cultural practices. What further action will the Government take to ensure that cultural integration is one of the foremost aims of their strategy?

I happen to believe that some of the cultural differences are things we should be celebrating. I value living in a culturally diverse community, and I aim for a society where we can all live our own lives, live our own religions and enjoy our cultures, but have a shared ownership of being within the United Kingdom state. That is our objective—one that I hope the whole House shares.

My Lords, my noble friend will recognise that an increasing number of the subjects of interest, in both the right-wing space and the Islamic space, being investigated by the security services are individuals under the age of 16. What more can be done to tackle the radicalisation of individuals, which is mainly done online?

My noble friend makes a very important point, and it is extremely important that we challenge the poison of online extremism that sometimes occurs. Existing legislation, particularly the Online Safety Act, empowers Ofcom to order the taking down of material that is damaging or extremist, and significant fines can be levied. However, we need to further examine how the online space is used to radicalise people, particularly those who, very often in their own bedrooms, are looking at such material, being sucked into an extremist pit—be it the right, Islamic extremism, or any other form of extremism—and groomed, in a sense, to undertake further activities. This is an extremely important issue that is difficult to challenge, but it is one the Government need to address.

My Lords, I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, when she talks about the importance of extremism criteria. How can we ensure objectivity and avoid politicisation of the term? In this House and the other House, we have seen the political winds propagating the false notion of two-tier policing, which is really divisive. Equally, in this House and the other House, we have heard politicians calling for more Black stop and search, when we are already disproportionately targeted. So criteria are important, and I urge the Minister to ensure objectivity in, and not the politicisation of, the process.