Before the noble Baroness starts, I remind noble Lords that this debate is time-limited. We have one speaker in the gap. If any speakers go over their time, that will eat into the time for the Minister to respond to the points made by noble Lords.
My Lords, first, I thank noble Lords who have stayed to take part in this debate, late on a Thursday afternoon. It is a timely debate because, as we all know, this week sees the beginning of the Omagh bomb inquiry. As it has begun, we have heard from the families of the victims of that bomb about how terrorism has destroyed their lives. The families of the victims have always behaved with decorum and dignity; my prayer is that they finally receive the answers they have been searching for and a modicum of closure. That dreadful day in August 1998 has much been in my mind this week.
I particularly want to thank the Minister, who is very knowledgeable of the threat of terrorism. This is in no small part due to his service as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, and I look forward to his response later. Of course, he is not here today as an NIO Minister but rather as a Home Office Minister, because the glorification of terrorists and their organisations is certainly not confined to my part of the United Kingdom but is a threat to the security of the nation as a whole.
I want to speak principally about Sinn Féin’s continued glorification of the terrorist organisation the Provisional IRA, and the consequences of that. However, recently, on the streets of some of our major cities, we have seen other proscribed organisations, such as Hamas, being lauded. That too has its consequences, particularly around radicalisation. I am sure that other colleagues will want to speak to that issue.
As someone who has lived with and through terrorism, I am always alert to anything that would encourage it and bring back those dark days of intimidation, murder and mayhem. Unfortunately, in the years since the cessation of IRA violence, there has been a strategy to lionise terrorists, putting them and their actions on a pedestal. There are many examples of Sinn Féin politicians, many of them senior people, attending commemorations and celebrations of the lives of those who sought to murder their neighbours. In the interests of time, I bring noble Lords the most recent example of a senior Sinn Féin figure glorifying the past deeds of terrorists.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, on obtaining this important debate and on bringing all her expertise and incisiveness to it in her opening remarks.
I declare my interest as set out in the register as a senior fellow at Policy Exchange, although my role there is unconnected with the issues of security, law and order, cohesion, integration and extremism that we will be discussing today. However, I was MP for Wycombe for nine years where, at that time, I represented more Muslims than any other MP from my party, and for several years I spoke as my party’s spokesperson in the Commons on integration and cohesion. So, although I will not discuss Northern Ireland today, I have an interest in the other matters raised by the noble Baroness.
I want to make five points and to ask the Minister some questions in the brief time I have. First, Hamas and Hezbollah are proscribed organisations. Secondly, there can be no doubt that they have been and are being glorified, on marches, online and, I am afraid to say, in mosques throughout the UK. If the Minister has any doubts on that last point, I recommend to him the excellent account on X called habibi, where he will see some of the most egregious instances laid out. However, I hasten to add that in my view—it is important to say this—most marchers and worshippers in mosques are not supporters of Hamas or Hezbollah.
Thirdly, this glorification reflects the import into our domestic politics of foreign strife abroad, particularly in relation to Kashmir and, as we all know, the Middle East. Fourthly, there can of course be no objection to anyone seeking to march or express views online, or even discussing in a religious setting the Middle East or Kashmir. I became very interested in the Kashmir issue when I was in the Commons and have raised it myself. However, there can be no room in our domestic politics for thuggery, abuse, violence or intimidation, all of which we are now beginning to see in some of our inner-city constituencies, especially during general elections, as the Minister will be well aware. Fifthly, and finally, this glorification and the issues that arise from it are fuel for the far right and the far left, both of which seek to undermine and collapse our democratic politics.
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, for securing this important debate. I am well aware of her intense personal interest and, to be frank, at times her suffering on account of terrorism in Northern Ireland. I am very grateful to her for securing this debate. I am also delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, will be replying. He was a distinguished Minister in Northern Ireland. It is now, I think, 15 years or so since he was a Minister, and I am interested in reflecting on how he sees the evolution of this question of the public perception of the glorification of terrorism—how he thinks things have happened, whether he is surprised or whether it is pretty much what he was expecting when he was a Minister.
I was a civil rights marcher and I speak from the point of view of John Hume. There is no grievance in Northern Ireland that was worth the loss of a single life. Even more importantly, in terms of political structures, these were all clearly, essentially in place in the 1974 Sunningdale Agreement. There was absolutely no need for the thousands of lives that were lost. The largest single purveyor of death was the Provisional IRA in this period by some way, although there is a dreadful record of loyalist crime, and there were also instances where the British state forces let themselves down. But there is no question about who the largest purveyor of death was.
In recent times, there have been a number of cultural phenomena that tend to recreate and glorify that campaign. The most obvious example is the phenomena around the group Kneecap and their very successful film. The Sunday Times and the BBC—all these official organs of our culture—celebrate Kneecap and their work.
I cite the verdict of Professor Liam Kennedy from Tipperary—an old colleague of mine at Queens. What he says, and with some acuity, in his review of Kneecap’s film, is that
“in subtle ways … Kneecap serves to validate the Provisionals’ murderous assaults on their … neighbours and the British state”
I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, on securing this debate. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, will respond, because he comes with tons of experience of the Northern Ireland situation. I know that this debate in general is about terrorism and the glorification of it at large, but on my immediate left is a victim of terrorism in his family, and the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, was directly a victim of terrorism when she was a youngster at school. Her father escaped, thank God, but not unscathed. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, was also a victim of terrorism, so we know this awful situation at very close hand. We do not have to run around and seek someone. People in my own family and my family circle were victims too. It seems that nearly everybody you know in Northern Ireland was in some way connected and got what I would call the sharp end of paramilitarism in Northern Ireland.
Not that this is very important, but I want to say it anyway, I come from a town in County Tyrone where I worked the best part of my life. The street I worked in was known as the most bombed street of any provincial town in Northern Ireland. In the Troubles, it had 18 500-pound car bombs planted on it. As soon as businesses were put together, another one arrived and the whole thing was blown. But, in the main, people did not turn to violence. They put their heads down, they got on with things and they rebuilt.
We now have a First Minister who tells us that there was no alternative to violence. That is an absolutely outrageous statement. Someone who holds that position should just stop and reflect on what they are saying and the impact that that has. We have lost thousands of people from both sides of the community. The IRA is responsible for 60% of those deaths, 30% are attributable to the loyalists and it is said that 10% are attributable to the forces of law and order, which is not strictly correct in this respect: that 10% figure includes where the security forces intervened or intercepted people on a mission to kill.
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Foster for securing this debate asking His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to deal with the glorification of terrorism. Page 3 of the helpful House of Lords Library paper outlines the definition of terrorism. It says that the 2000 Act covers anyone who
“promotes or encourages terrorism, including the unlawful glorification of terrorism”.
Section 1.2 is headed “How is glorifying terrorism defined?” and says:
“Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 makes the encouragement of terrorism an offence”,
including any offence that
“glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences”.
Michelle O’Neill, who is now First Minister of Northern Ireland, stated in a BBC interview in 2022 that there was “no alternative” to the IRA campaign of violence before the 1998 Belfast agreement. I believe that the overwhelming majority of people were appalled at that sickening statement in her BBC interview. The continuing campaign by Sinn Féin to seek to justify and glorify the IRA campaign exposes what Sinn Féin leaders still believe. She said that
“the war came to Ireland”,
which is republicans’ effort to rewrite historical reality and must be strenuously challenged, not only by unionist politicians but by this Government.
There has always been an alternative to terrorism and there has never been a justification for such murderous activity. Does Michelle O’Neill believe that there was no alternative to shooting the innocent, butchering those whom the IRA interrogated, planting bombs to blow up men, women and children indiscriminately, kidnapping mothers such as Jean McConville in their own community, destroying families, targeting neighbours, terrorising communities and causing mayhem? Sinn Féin/IRA may try to sanitise itself but it must never be allowed to forget the devastating legacy of its violence, which is inflicted on the people of Northern Ireland and the mainland. Does she really think that there was no alternative to taking 10 innocent workmen off the bus at Kingsmill and shooting them like dogs along the road, simply because they were Protestant? The remarks made by Michelle O’Neill inflict further pain and suffering on the families of the victims who died as a result of the IRA’s murderous campaign.
My Lords, I will speak briefly. I start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, not just on securing this important debate but on the powerful and moving speech that she made, as well as all other Members. It has been very moving to listen to the contributions this afternoon.
I want to pick up on the point about people chanting support for the IRA. Yesterday on the streets of Birmingham, and last night at Villa Park, where I was watching the Villa-Celtic game, there were disgraceful scenes of people chanting support for the IRA. That, in a city where 21 people were murdered in the 1974 pub bombings and hundreds more were injured, is a complete and utter disgrace.
The CPS has said that tragedy chanting about Hillsborough or the Munich air crash can be treated as a public order offence, that fans responsible should be banned and that people can be arrested. I would like the Minister to find out why the police seem to have taken no action yesterday in Birmingham. I would like him to speak to the police and the CPS to ensure that the people responsible can be identified and prosecuted. Does he agree that Celtic must deal with this? They have to condemn it—it is an absolute disgrace. They know who they sold the tickets to, they can identify them and ban them. If Celtic will not do that, does the Minister agree that they should be banned from European competition in future? They can chant what they like—well, they should not, but what they do at Parkhead is a matter for them. Coming to Birmingham and chanting support for the IRA in that city is a complete and utter disgrace, and I would like the Minister to look at this.
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee, for bringing such a timely and important debate, and indeed all other noble Lords for their touching contributions.
The glorification of terrorism and terrorists in the United Kingdom is an issue that of course affects us all, but in particular the victims and survivors of these heinous acts. I start by emphatically stating that my heart goes out to those affected by terrorism, and in particular today to the Jewish community. When people march in London singing anti-Semitic slogans that glorify the terrorist atrocities of Hamas and 7 October, I consider it to be a dark day indeed. That applies equally to those who seek to glorify the appalling terrorist acts of the Troubles—as we have heard today, some of them were absolutely appalling—or indeed any other heinous acts which have happened in our nation and seek to undermine the fabric of our society. We should call out the glorification of terrorism at every opportunity.
First, under the Terrorism Act 2006 it is already an offence to glorify acts of terrorism. However, enforcement alone is not sufficient. What steps are His Majesty’s Government taking to root out the ideologies and cultural narratives that allow such glorification to thrive? Can the Minister also say whether the Government have a plan in place to ensure that all cases of glorification are treated equally, so as to protect the victims and survivors?
Secondly—this is an important point—we must ensure that our educational institutions are not unwittingly providing a platform for extremist ideologies. Schools and universities are critical places where strategies can be implemented that are hugely important in addressing radicalisation. What steps have been taken to strengthen the implementation of anti-terrorist strategies and address the growing challenges posed by online radicalisation?
My Lords, I am grateful for this debate today, which has been full of emotion and concern. It has raised issues that deserve to be respected, and I hope to be able to answer them in part.
I am particularly aware that this week, as the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, mentioned, sees the commencement of the Omagh bombing inquiry. I had the privilege of attending the Memorial Garden in Omagh some 15 years ago. I met victims there and learned of their continued pain, anger and desire for answers. The noble Baroness has herself been a victim of terrorist activity, and I understand the pain, anger and wish for answers that she brings to this debate. I have met with victims of Omagh. I have sat in a room with the widows of police officers who were murdered. I have met those who were killed by the IRA—and, indeed, those who were shot dead by loyalist paramilitaries as well. I have sat with, and looked into the eyes of, people who have undertaken those killings, both from the IRA and from the loyalist community. I did so to try to understand and resolve some of the issues that underpin this debate today.
I am grateful for the comments from a number of noble Lords and Baronesses. The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, mentioned my service in Northern Ireland. I had a fleeting period in Northern Ireland, but it left a deep impression on me and on my examination of the issues that still affect us today. Even in this Home Office job, just before Christmas, I attended the 50th anniversary of the Birmingham pub bombing. People still wanted answers and still did not understand; they were still the victims of violence that took place in the context of our discussions today. So I understand that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, asked what has changed since I was there. I would be interested to see what has happened since I left. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, mentioned this as well. One thing has happened since I left. When I was in Northern Ireland, I was the First Minister; I was the Deputy First Minister; I was the Treasury Minister, for a while; and I was the Culture Minister and the Housing Minister. Now, Michelle O’Neill and Emma Little-Pengelly hold those posts in a devolved Administration salvaged from the trauma of that not occurring. They have got local decision-making back in place, as envisaged by the Good Friday/Belfast agreement—call it what you will—of 1998. So, there has been progress in many ways, but pain—it has been visible in the Room today—still exists as a result of that activity.
20 of 21 shown
Before Christmas, Michelle O’Neill, the vice-president of Sinn Féin and the current First Minister of Northern Ireland, attended a Provisional IRA commemoration in County Londonderry. The men she was commemorating before Christmas were killed by their own bomb as they travelled through Magherafelt in December 1971—long before Michelle O’Neill was born. Their names were Jim Sheridan, John Bateson and Martin Lee, all members of the self-styled South Derry Brigade of the IRA; it was announced after their deaths that they were on “active service” at the time. Here were three young men with murder in their hearts, who had been dead for 53 years in December, and the current First Minister of Northern Ireland thought it appropriate to commemorate them.
It goes without saying that, as on every occasion when this happens, the deep offence and hurt to those who have suffered at the hands of the IRA is revisited. The retraumatisation of victims is unforgivable and needs called out on every occasion it happens, but this public act of commemoration also sends a very clear message to young republicans that what these young men did was honourable. It glamorises what they did and, to young and impressionable people who have little knowledge or life experience of the brutality of the IRA, it makes them sound like heroes, which patently they were not.
The often-chanted “Ooh ah up the Ra” is a symptom of the continuing republican glorification of dead terrorists. It is, some argue, just a bit of fun, but nothing could be further from the truth. I will never forget being at a black-tie event in Belfast and being asked for a picture by a glamorous young woman, only to have her sing “Ooh ah up the Ra” into my face as she took a video. The fact that my father had survived an IRA attempt on his life, or that as a teenager I was on a school bus that was blown up by “the Ra” because our bus driver was a member of the security forces, was irrelevant to her. She thought that it was funny. I did not.
There is the issue. If we allow people in positions of authority to glorify terrorism in the way that the current First Minister of Northern Ireland does, it normalises and sanitises terrorism, and, in a cyclical way, this will lead to young people being radicalised again. Witness the radicalisation of those currently on our streets supporting the actions of Hamas. Many of the young people doing so know little about the Middle East but think it is quite hip and trendy to support Hamas, because they hate Israel.
A little knowledge is a very dangerous thing. If all you know about the IRA is that they took on the Brits and that the First Minister said they were a “great bunch of lads”, you will think that “Ooh ah up the Ra” is a grand wee chant. These young people know little of the devastation, murder, intimidation and barbarity of the IRA, because it is not something that the current First Minister talks about.
There have been conversations in the past about making the glorification of terrorism a criminal offence. Indeed, the Terrorism Act 2006 makes provision for a person to be charged with an offence if they make a statement that encourages a person to commit, prepare or instigate acts of terrorism. There have been no prosecutions under this section, to my knowledge, in Northern Ireland to date because, when challenged about such behaviour, Sinn Féin will argue that it is just honouring its dead. But of course it is much more than that. Its senior leadership is sending a message to wider republicans that violence and terrorism can be justified and that what the IRA did was justified. Of course it was not; there was never any justification for the violence, despite what the current First Minister claims. She will continue to claim that, and indeed to support the actions of these terrorists publicly, until she is prevented from doing so under law.
On Tuesday in the other place there was an Urgent Oral Question on the Government’s extremism review. During that Question, the member for North Antrim, Jim Allister MP, asked the Minister for Security about the glorification of terrorism by the current First Minister of Northern Ireland. The response he got from the Security Minister was disappointing, as he said:
“I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to delve into matters in Northern Ireland in the context of this response”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/1/25; col. 165.]
Why not? If the current First Minister of Northern Ireland is intent on continuing her glorification of terrorism and, at best, is reckless about the consequences, surely that should be a matter that a Security Minister should delve into. I hope the Minister here will be able to be a little clearer on that issue.
The IRA were defeated by the security services across the United Kingdom, not least the brave men and women who served in the RUC, the RUC Reserve, the PSNI, the Ulster Defence Regiment and then the Royal Irish Regiment, and of course colleagues in the mainstream Army. As the daughter of an RUC officer, I was always incredibly proud of how he served without fear or favour. For him and for many others to have their memories sullied by glorifying the terrorists who sought to murder them makes me very angry. We cannot allow the propaganda of the IRA’s political wing to rewrite what happened in Northern Ireland. That is why a change in the law is required, especially to deal with those in authority who continue to exalt and deify terrorists who have caused so much hurt and pain.
I am aware that, in 2023, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation considered whether the legislation on the encouragement and glorification of terrorism under the 2006 Act should be amended. He concluded that it was not possible to formulate a mere glorification offence within acceptable limits, and therefore recommended against amending Section 1 of the Terrorism Act. However, this conclusion was before the onslaught of the glorification that we have seen on our streets in respect of Hamas, and perhaps Mr Hall KC may want to review this section again. However, I acknowledge his expertise and instead propose a more nuanced approach.
I submit that the Government should consider an amendment to the legislation so that persons in authority or holding a particular office, such as a Minister in government or in the Northern Ireland Executive, should not be allowed to glorify past acts of terrorism, or terrorists, and that if they do so, they are committing an offence. This amendment is narrow in scope but would deal with the specific issue of people in authority sending skewed messages to young people about terrorism and the terrorists of the past. It falls within the counterterrorism strategy’s first principle of Prevent,
“to stop people from becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism”,
and therefore aligns with the Government’s strategy. I look forward to the Minister’s thoughts on that proposal.
I also note that there is a new interim Prevent commissioner, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who was appointed very recently, and I am more than happy to discuss this matter with him. He is here today, and I am very glad about that. I will leave my remarks there, and I look forward to hearing from noble Lords in relation to this issue.
I move on to some questions for the Minister about policing. I pay tribute to the work of the police, who have very difficult decisions and judgments to make. I introduce these questions with a quote from Matt Twist, Assistant Commissioner at the Met, who said:
“When we look back at the policing of protests over the last eight months, we know we didn’t get everything right”.
He said that while being interviewed for the Policy Exchange report, Might is Right?, by David Spencer, Sir Stephen Laws and Niamh Webb. My questions arise from recommendations in the report. I am not expecting the Minister to provide detailed answers today but if he does not have them, I would be grateful if he would write in due course.
Will the Government change the criteria to prohibit a protest march under Section 16 of the Public Order Act 1986 to prevent serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community, explicitly including the impact of cumulative disruption? Will the Government introduce a provision to prohibit a march if it would place any undue demands on the police or military forces, replicating Section 11 of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998? Will the Government amend Section 11 of the Public Order Act 1986 to increase the notification period for all protest marches to 28 days, replicating the requirements in Northern Ireland? Will the Government legislate to expressly reverse the DPP v Ziegler Supreme Court verdict to ensure that no protester has a lawful excuse for obstructing the highway and for any public order offence, if he or she intends to obstruct, harass, inconvenience or harm others? Will the Government legislate to make it unlawful for individuals at protests to wear face coverings wholly or mainly with the intention of concealing their identity? Will the Government consider introducing a parades commission in London, and perhaps elsewhere, modelled on the commission in Northern Ireland?
Our liberal democracies depend on trust in order to function, and it would appear that trust is in decreasing supply, I am afraid, in countries that maintain high migration, have low growth and have high tech. I look forward to the Minister answering questions.
and validates the idea that the decades of terror were
“inevitable and necessary, the last recourse of an historically oppressed people suffering from intergenerational trauma”.
I should say something else about my friend Professor Kennedy. More than any other academic in Belfast—I suspect that the Minister remembers this—he cared about the fate of those who were actually kneecapped in east Belfast in large numbers by the Provisional IRA. Nobody put themselves more at risk in speaking out against these crimes.
There is also the poem “The Knee” from this era by Ciaran Carson. I will read only the last section, which describes a kneecapping:
“It seems he was a hood, whatever, or the lads were just being careful.
Two and two were put together; what they added up to wasn’t five.
Visiting time: he takes his thirteen-month-old son on his other knee.
Learning to walk, he suddenly throws himself into the staggering,
Distance between his father and his father’s father, hands held up high,
His legs like the hands of a clock, one trying to catch up on the other”.
This is the cruelty which is now apparently a subject for critical acclaim in our mainstream media. This is why we are disturbed about the glorification of terrorism.
We have all made concessions, and the Minister was particularly important in defending the achievements of the Good Friday agreement when he was a Minister. But, as I say, I speak as somebody who was a civil rights marcher and who has never changed my mind on John Hume’s dictum that there is not a single political failing in Northern Ireland that justified or even began to justify the loss of a single life. But, somehow, Hume’s wisdom seems to be eroding now, and that is what is so worrying.
For example, there is a small village by the name of Coagh. The noble Lord, Lord McCrea, would know it, as he would have represented it at one time when he was the MP for Mid Ulster. Indeed, Stewartstown, where he grew up as a young fellow, is not far from it. The IRA made a mission to kill in that village on one occasion, and the security forces intercepted it. Now we have a demand asking why these IRA people have not had an inquest.
However, the story does not end there, because in that same village, Coagh, three Protestant workmen were having a conversation one day in a garage repair shop. An IRA squad arrived and just annihilated them as they were standing there having a conversation. That, of course, was designed to create as much antagonism as possible and to get a reaction, but there is no demand for an inquest into their deaths. Why is it that the terrorists are so important that they must have an inquest, but not these three unfortunate souls, who were just having a conversation on a summer’s afternoon when they were gunned down? No, they are dispensable.
In the report that the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, referred to, reference is made to the Terrorism Act 2000. That Act established several proscription offences, including addressing a meeting wearing clothing or displaying articles in public which
“arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation”.
That is still going on. We now have what are called the dissident republicans, who are trying to carry on where others have left off. The PSNI, which would be the enforcement body, are under-resourced and underfunded. If we are going to get on top of the situation, the PSNI has to be given the materiel and the money to ensure that it can give reliable service to the community. Otherwise, we could drift back to terrible times, and not one of us in this Room today wants that to happen.
Surely, it is time. We have a very delicate situation in Northern Ireland and sometimes, we do not fully appreciate in your Lordships’ House just how delicate things can be. If it gets to the stage where terrorism is celebrated, which does happen, and no action is taken, there will be a bad ending. The situation we are in, and where we have come from, needs to be fully appreciated. I hope the Minister will take note, and I am sure he will, because he knows the situation quite well. He has tons of experience and I welcome him to his new post. I cannot think of anybody better to do it than him.
It should also be remembered that the IRA holds the distinction of killing more Roman Catholics in the Troubles than any other protagonist in the conflict. So much for its claim that the IRA was established to defend the Catholic community from the British invaders. The IRA has a toxic legacy of murder; to suggest that there was no alternative seeks to poison future generations and to normalise terrorism, making it a legitimate way to get your way if you claim to be denied your political ambitions or aims. No wonder that, even today, across many nationalist areas, young people in clubs shout “Up the IRA” et cetera, as though what the Provos did should be glorified.
When challenged, Michelle O’Neill dismissed criticism by saying that
“we need to be mature enough … to agree to differ”,
glibly casting aside the hurt of her words. Of course, in reality, the mask slipped and exposed the heart of Sinn Féin philosophy: her shameful and arrogant defence of IRA terrorism for more than 30 years. As the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, mentioned, even as First Minister, Michelle O’Neill attended a commemoration in December to mark the deaths of three IRA men in my town, where I live, who killed themselves with their own bomb while on a murder mission more than 50 years ago. The men were said to be on a so-called active service mission at the time, but it was worthy of the First Minister of all the people of Northern Ireland to commemorate it—a further illustration of Sinn Féin being an integral part of the IRA.
Two weeks ago, I took part in a service along the roadside near Cookstown to mark the 33rd anniversary of the murder of eight innocent workmen at Teebane. I will never forget that night, for I assisted the injured in getting into the ambulance after that atrocity. I witness to this day the scars of some of those on that workmen’s bus who survived.
Never forget that I and other noble Lords here today lived through those 30 years of terror. We are not speaking about something we do not know. I know what it is to have my heart broken by the murder of my loved ones—to see them lying on a slab, with their bodies blown asunder. I know what it is to see a 16 year-old boy with only parts of his head and a few bones left because the rest of his body was blown to bits. He was not nothing; as a matter of fact, the one he was with was engaged to be married that day and was going to show her engagement ring to her aunt. I know what it is to see my children terrorised: 40 to 50 bullets were shot at our home when they were in it, and I received a real bomb packaged as missionary material.
There is nothing glorious in terrorism, irrespective of which community it comes from. We must unreservedly condemn it and ensure that our grandchildren never face that evil ever again, but we must also learn the lessons of the past. Because Governments failed to protect our people, innocent people faced the tragedy of 30 years of terrorism. May we learn the lessons of the past and never allow a generation to suffer such consequences again.
Thirdly, the role of social media can hardly be overstated. Platforms that allow the dissemination of extremist propaganda must be held accountable. So, how are His Majesty’s Government working with technology companies to ensure robust enforcement of policies which ban hate speech? Are we doing enough to educate young people about the dangers of consuming and sharing such material?
Finally, we must confront this issue at the societal level. This requires more than legislation; it requires leadership. I urge His Majesty’s Government to take a stand against those who seek to manipulate grievances for the purpose of sowing division and hatred. Counterextremism efforts must be community-led, with a focus on fostering a shared understanding of our values in Britain, which unite, rather than divide, our diverse population.
We cannot, and must not, allow the glorification of terrorism to gain a foothold in our society. It is a matter of not just security but moral clarity. I call on the Government to redouble their efforts in order to address the growing menace with the urgency and determination that it demands.
In a sense, I would like to look to the future as well. We have the legacy of the Troubles, which, again, is self-evidently visible in this Room today—the trauma experienced by individuals and communities, and by some noble Lords and Baronesses in this Room, some of whom have represented such individuals in Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly, as was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe.
Addressing the legacy of the Troubles is one of the aims of the Good Friday agreement. Noble Lords will be aware that the Government, through my right honourable friend Hilary Benn, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, are looking at how we can build on that legacy in order to ensure that we understand and find a way through those difficult issues.
The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, has given a view on the First Minister, as have other noble Lords here today; that is in the Room and on the record today. I hope that we can look at some of the issues as we go forward, while recognising that there is still a very deep scar in Northern Ireland as a whole.
That brings me to two points in relation to this debate. First, there is a Section 1 Terrorism Act 2006 offence of encouraging terrorism, including unlawful glorification. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, mentioned it. I will come to the other points he raised in a moment. For individuals who glorify acts of terrorism, whether online or offline, whether with reference to proscribed organisations or individual acts of terrorism, such behaviour has no place in our society. There is a legal definition of that act of glorification currently on the statute book. Police forces in Northern Ireland or elsewhere can seek to examine it and can bring prosecutions accordingly. It may not be satisfactory to the noble Baroness, and she may worry about the number of prosecutions made—I understand that—but that framework is there in law.
In that sense, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Austin, who I still call my noble friend, that the incidents at a football match this week, which I was not party to—I have read about them, I have not seen them personally, but I take his word for what happened—can be referred by the police if they feel a criminal act was committed under that offence. I urge him to draw it to the attention of the West Midlands Police because that is where the appropriate response lies. It is not for Ministers to determine whether criminal action has taken place, it is for Ministers to put legislation in place.
The second important area is Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which makes it an offence to support a proscribed organisation. Again, this was referred to by a number of Members. There is a whole list of proscribed organisations which the Government have determined are beyond the pale, owing to their activities. Hamas is included in that. I was not in Parliament at the time, but in 2019 the offence was widened to ensure that it captured such statements even where the speaker is reckless as to their impact. The penalty for that proscription offence is a maximum of 14 years in prison and/or an unlimited fine. Again, there is legislation on the statute book now, and it is not for Ministers to determine whether that legislation has been broken. It is for the police to make an arrest, prepare a case and put it to the Crown Prosecution Service; and it is for the CPS to determine whether charges should be made. Those charges are either made or not. If they are made, they go to court. If they go to court, they are in front of a jury and the jury determines whether the law has been broken.
So, currently, there is a mechanism in place for any of the instances noble Lords have raised concerns about today. Are those two mechanisms currently satisfactory, given the nature of the changes in the threat and the activities? Well, the Government have done two things since 4 July. We organised what we called a sprint to review counter-terrorism legislation. There was a leak of some discussion this week. That is not government policy—I put that on the record—but we have asked Jonathan Hall KC to look at current legislation and I think it is important that this debate can form part of assessment for the Government. He will make that assessment and produce a report on current terrorism legislation, by which I mean Section 12 of the Terrorism Act, Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 or indeed some potential new legislation to cover any issues raised today and elsewhere. He will present that report to Ministers at a date to be determined, we will make an assessment and either accept or reject any recommendations, and we may or may not bring forward new legislation during the many opportunities we have this year.
I am pleased, again, to see the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, in his place because I am grateful to him as he has accepted a commission from the Government to review the current operation of Prevent. It largely does not deal with the Northern Ireland situation, I accept that, but it deals with some of the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and other noble Lords in this Committee have mentioned. So, without wanting to influence the determination of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, he has a mandate independently to review this and make recommendations, which, again, the Government can reject or accept, that will be brought to this House in due course.
I say to all noble Lords here today that I understand the pain seen by the noble Lords, Lord Morrow, Lord McCrea and Lord Bew, and referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, and my noble friend Lord Austin. I particularly understand the sentiments of the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Foster. However, those issues are, in a sense, up for review. If the legislation is not sufficient or appropriate, then that will be reviewed, and recommendations will be made. We will respond to that in due course.
I will refer to a couple of other points that have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, raised a series of questions effectively about marching, parades and determinations. There is legislation on the statute book, and I have referred to it in the Chamber of this House recently. Legislation about marches is there. It gives powers to police officers and Gold Command to determine marching routes and whether they are suitable or if they cause difficulties. It is not the Parades Commission, but it a determination.
As a Government, we are currently looking at number of issues relating to the position of legislation. We have already publicly announced that there is legislation coming this year in a police and crime Bill that will look at the issue of war memorials and people who abuse them or stand on them. That is an issue. There are a number of other challenges that are on the radar. I am not in a position to announce policy today, but I assure the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that we are working on a number of policy options that will address some issues to do with the management of parades and marches in due course. When we are in position to announce them, we will do so in the police and crime Bill.
The Government are committed to ensuring that police have appropriate powers to maintain order. There are a range of powers already on the statute book for the police to do that. We are keeping all that public order legislation under constant review. Where there are gaps, we will identify them. I will look at the points that the noble Lord mentioned, and I will write to him in detail in response to them.
My time is up. I could add a few more points, but I want to touch on the contribution from His Majesty’s Opposition’s Front Bench. It is important that we look at the internet. It is important that we look at radicalisation on the internet. Again, that forms part of reviews that are taking place currently. Also, the Government are committed to reviewing that with the platform companies to make sure that we remove content that is encouraging terrorism or, indeed, encouraging the abuse of children or sexual abuse in other ways. That is all on the agenda as well.
Given that I am one minute over, I thank the noble Baroness for raising this issue. I may not have answered all her points, but she has a right to raise those issues. She has done in that in an effective way that has left a legacy on this Committee in terms of its discussion. If I have not picked up points made by noble Lords today, I will do so and respond according. I look forward to continuing to work with colleagues from Northern Ireland and beyond to ensure that the next generation of children has a peaceful and productive future in a society that respects differences and rejects violence.