Counter-Extremism Strategy

Lord Massey of Hampstead Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Massey of Hampstead (Con)]

This is an excellent time to be debating this vital issue and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Goodman of Wycombe on initiating this debate and on his recent comments on this important and complex subject. The Government have commissioned a rapid analytical sprint review but have not yet accepted its findings. But the review, as we know, has been the subject of a Policy Exchange document and identifies a broad range of extremist threats from the far right, the manosphere, left-wing and climate-change protests and many other areas. However, it does not seem to prioritise what is evidently the single biggest threat to the UK, which is, of course, Islamism, as my noble friend and many others have mentioned.

The leaked report is interesting because it reveals the Civil Service’s approach to this issue. It seeks to focus on behaviour and conducts, not ideologies that pose enormous threats to this country. These threats include not just terrorist activities and persistent violent protests but dangerous, non-violent activities below the radar by organisations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, as my noble friend Lady Jenkin mentioned, and Iranian cells. It should be a matter of great concern that certain moderate Muslim countries recognise these risks more than we do.

The clue to the approach in the leaked document can be found in the title: “Understand”. This is in contrast to the title of the APPG’s counterterrorism document, Time to Act. I know which approach I prefer. The core of our problem today is that there has been too much understanding and not enough action. A tolerance has built up of despicable actions by certain segments of our society. Jonathan Hall KC recently referred to this as the normalisation of extremism, where hateful and divisive views, once occupying the fringe, are now widely expressed with impunity.

This is happening because a great deal of hateful extremism operates just below the legal threshold. I would be interested in the Government’s assessment of the report by the commission led by Sir Mark Rowley and Dame Sara Khan in 2021, Operating with Impunity, as it seems very relevant to any strategy formulation today. Sir Mark reiterated his findings as recently as December 2025.

Just 7% of those arrested in pro-Palestinian marches have been charged. When so-called protestors break a police officer’s back with a sledgehammer, a jury is unable to convict them. Is it any wonder that they operate with complete impunity? Terrorist incidents do not occur in a vacuum. The fact that incidents of antisemitism actually increased in the aftermath of the Manchester attack, just as they did in the aftermath of the massacre of 7 October, shows that extremism needs to be addressed early and decisively.

Part of the problem, as has been mentioned, is the fear of appearing discriminatory. Dame Sara Khan put the problem well in her recent review on social cohesion and democratic resilience. She says:

“It is vital that police forces do not inadvertently support hate preachers and extremist actors in the misguided belief that such activity supports social cohesion or diversity and inclusion principles”.


These comments could apply to important cases in Rotherham and Batley, and most recently with the West Midlands Police Force. As the Government finalise their review, I ask the Minister to ensure that there will be a well-resourced unit to centre on the Islamist threat to this country, especially on the organised—and organised is a key word—funded and planned aspect of this threat. Yes, we need understanding, but it really is time to act.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Massey of Hampstead Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 15th January 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I share the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, that senior police officers do not always act as they should. On Tuesday in particular, I expressed that concern in these proceedings and was rather rebuffed by the Minister. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, that I do not believe that senior police officers in particular cannot generally be relied upon to act in the best interests of their community, but I urge the Government to beware of legislating in the confident expectation that they always will. The reservations of the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, are justified. As he explained, Clause 124, if unamended, will permit a senior police officer to impose restrictions where processions or protests are

“in the vicinity of a place of worship and may intimidate persons of reasonable firmness”,

and deter them from attending

“a place of worship for the purpose of carrying out religious activities”,

or from actually carrying out such activities. As the noble Lord has explained, the amendments would add faith schools and faith community centres to list of institutions where conditions might be imposed.

On Tuesday, we went through considerable argument about the purposes of Clause 124. There was a great deal of discussion about protecting synagogues on successive Saturdays, and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, has raised the important point that communities gather together, worship or carry out religious activities and celebrations in areas quite apart from synagogues. Bondi Beach, after all, is not a synagogue: it is a public beach where Hanukkah celebrations had been organised and were being attended by Jewish communities.

I add my voice to those of the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe, and Lord Leigh of Hurley: our faith communities need protecting wherever they are gathering for the purposes of their faith. That said, I certainly agree, as does the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, with the extension of this power to cover religious activities at faith schools and faith community centres. That would be a proportionate protection, and well defined. Faith schools are a particular sensitivity, because they are principally for young people of given faiths, who may be damaged psychologically for life by being attacked in or in the vicinity of those schools. The same goes for faith community centres, where Sunday school activities or religious education may be taking place. Of course, this is of particular importance to the Jewish community in the present climate, in the light of the horrific attacks that have taken place, about which we have heard a great deal. But it is also very important that Muslim faith schools and community centres should be protected too in the presence of considerable xenophobia and Islamophobia.

We need these protections; we need to combat the fear that is now beginning to permeate the whole of our national life, and which has a really unpleasant and damaging effect. It destroys community cohesion, national spirit and the tolerance for which this country has long been famous.

[Lord Massey of Hampstead (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, and to add to the dialogue by saying that we are becoming desensitised to violent, harassing and intimidatory protests. The ideal of having local senior police officers in charge of restricting these protests is becoming much riskier, so the need to legislate has become much more urgent. I endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, in supporting this amendment.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group, tabled by my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley and spoken to by him so powerfully today, address an important gap in the Bill as drafted. They would ensure that faith schools and community centres are included within the definition of religious sites for the purpose of restrictions on protests. At their core, these amendments are about protecting people’s ability to practise their faith freely and without intimidation. Places of worship are more than simply buildings used for ceremonial services; they are frequently part of a wider religious campus that often includes schools, halls and community sites. It is wrong to draw an artificial distinction, even if inadvertently so, between a synagogue, a church or a temple and their adjoining faith school or community centre.

Clause 124 itself, and these amendments, do not seek to ban protest, nor to diminish the right to peaceful assembly. Instead, they allow the police to impose proportionate conditions where a protest in the vicinity of a religious site may intimidate people of “reasonable firmness” and deter them from accessing or carrying out religious activities. We had a long and vigorous debate on Tuesday about the clause itself. It is crucial, as many said on that day, that the test be rooted in reasonableness and necessity, and is not used as a guise for police forces to stifle people’s free speech and right to protest. Self-evidently, that must be counterbalanced against people’s safety, particularly that of children, which is where these amendments are so apposite.

This is particularly important given the heinous terrorist attack that took place at Heaton Park synagogue. The aftermath of that attack saw armed police required to stand guard at Jewish schools and community centres. That this had to happen should shame us all. In a civilised country, no one should have to live in such fear. Not only that but in recent years there has been a troubling rise in protests which target religious communities in ways that stray from robust political expression into sheer intimidation.

Faith schools and community centres are where children and families in particular gather, who should never be subject to threatening activity simply due to their faith. They are often places of education, as we have heard from noble Lord, Lord Marks. They are places of leisure and places of play—all in a religious setting.

With that said, it is my submission that the amendments in the name of my noble friend are a welcome step. I hope that the Minister pays them very close regard. I look forward to hearing his response.

Undocumented Migrants

Lord Massey of Hampstead Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Massey of Hampstead]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the specific factors driving the increase in the number of undocumented migrants leaving France to enter the United Kingdom.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

The Government are committed to tackling illegal migration and the criminal networks that are behind it. There is no single universal push or pull factor independently driving irregular migration to the UK. In many cases, migrants are directed or coerced by organised criminal networks. That is why the Government’s focus is on tackling criminal gangs and securing ground-breaking co-operation with international partners while keeping all issues under review.

[Lord Massey of Hampstead (Con)]

The Home Secretary recently issued a statement with positive plans to deal with the crisis in relation to small boats. But, as we witnessed yesterday, even the deportation of a very small number of people back to France proved impossible. The focus of successive Governments on the criminal gangs and attempts to reach agreement with France has not impacted on numbers at all thus far. We are perceived quite widely as a soft touch, and our compassion is being exploited. So what further plans do the Government have to address the specific issues that make the UK so attractive relative to France? Does the noble Lord share my concern that the problem could get worse as European countries tighten their own immigration rules?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I reassure the noble Lord that the UK Government are not a soft touch. He will know that, through the immigration Bill, we are putting in place a Border Force command. We have employed 200 staff since last year to up our efforts on that. We have put an extra £150 million into Border Force funding. We have signed the agreement with France, and I can tell the noble Lord that returns are imminent and that that agreement is in place, delivering detention of individuals for return to France. Irrespective of that, we are also tackling some of the illegal migration and putting extra efforts into focusing on that undercover activity that allows people to work. I can give the noble Lord, outside the Chamber, a great deal of statistics on that result. We are not a soft touch; we are taking action and intend to reduce that flow over time.

Borders and Asylum

Lord Massey of Hampstead Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

To live in this country requires basic adherence to tenets of good behaviour, and if foreign nationals commit offences then they should be deported at the end of their sentence. My noble friend will know, I hope, that, since 5 July 2024, 5,179 foreign national offenders have been removed from the United Kingdom. That is an increase of 14% over the previous year and one that we intend to further increase for those foreign nationals who have abused the privilege of being a resident of the United Kingdom by committing an offence. That is coupled with the other issues he mentioned, such as a 13% increase in returns and a 24% increase in enforced returns. But the key to all of this, ultimately, is to speed up the asylum system and make sure that, when someone arrives and claims asylum, that asylum claim is dealt with speedily and effectively. That is what the new body announced in the Statement and the efforts we have made to date are really going to be focused on.

[Lord Massey of Hampstead (Con)]

My Lords, the Statement from the Home Secretary contains many laudable aspirations, and I am sure we can all agree that the timing of implementation is of paramount importance as numbers seem to be growing, deepening a sense of crisis, notwithstanding August’s favourable figures. One of the proposed measures, and a potentially important one, is to seek reform of the ECHR and especially Article 8. To change the operation of the ECHR would require the agreement of 46 signatories and presumably take many years, but I notice that the Statement refers to

“reforming the way that the European Convention on Human Rights is interpreted here at home”,

which is, I presume, a way of speeding up the process of reform. I have a very simple question. How do the Government propose to implement this change in interpretation and in what sort of timeframe?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is a very valid question, and I am grateful for the broad support that the noble Lord has given to the proposals before us. We have said in the immigration Bill, and we have said publicly, that we want to look at how Article 8 of the ECHR, the right to family life, is interpreted. We have seen wide interpretation of Article 8 to ensure that individuals can protect themselves against deportation when asylum claims have failed. In the next few months—and I hope the noble Lord will bear with me on this—we intend to issue a further consultation on what we need to do on that. It does not involve us, as some political parties and others would want, leaving the ECHR; I hope it will revise the guidance so judges can examine it and make different judgments accordingly, based on the information that we will ultimately supply.