Counter-Extremism Strategy

Lord Goodman of Wycombe Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Grand Committee

Asked by

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to the introduction of a counter-extremism strategy.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to open this short debate on the consideration given to the introduction of a counterextremism strategy. The usual form on these occasions is to describe the issues and ask some questions. However, the issues I want to describe and the questions I want to ask were described and asked recently in the House, as the Minister knows. I will therefore be as brief as I can in order to allow other noble Lords to have their say; I am delighted to see so many colleagues present.

I turn first to the issues. In sum, my view is that non-violent extremism aims to, in the words of the previous Government’s definition,

“negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others … undermine, overturn or replace”

our

“system of liberal … democracy and democratic rights; or … intentionally create a permissive environment for others”.

At best, this non-violent extremism makes cohesion and integration impossible; at worst, it gives rise to harassment, public order offences, acts of terrorism and other breaches of the rule of law. Its three most prominent forms are far-right, far-left and Islamist extremism. The last of those is responsible for some 71% of terrorist incidents in Britain since the London Tube atrocities of 7 July 2005, as well as some 75% of the case load of Contest, the Government’s counterterror strategy. This is not—I repeat, not—to conflate Islam, the ancient religion, with Islamism, the political ideology, any more than it is to conflate the far left and socialism or the far right and patriotism.

Having set out the issues, I turn next to the Government’s response. When asked recently in the House whether the Government uphold the definition of non-violent extremism that I quoted earlier or have one of their own, the Minister said that it,

“is a deeply challenging and complex area”,

and that,

“there is no statutory definition of or consensus on what would include extremism”.

When he was asked whether a counterextremism commissioner will be appointed to replace Robin Simcox, the Minister repeated:

“We are reviewing the roles and remits of various bodies to ensure our resources are best placed to meet current challenges”.


When he was asked whether the Government will publish the rapid analytical sprint review of non-violent extremism, commissioned after the general election, he said that publication,

“could, for example, undermine policy development”.—[Official Report, 27/1/26; cols. 804-06.]

and sent a file of support for terror, antisemitism, denial and conspiracy theory gleaned from mosques. I then asked how many prosecutions have arisen, and the Minister replied that no figures are available.

It is not hard to see what is happening here. There is a repeated cycle. First, there is an incident. It could be the conviction of a left-wing anarchist in 2024 on multiple terror charges. It could be the attack on the Heaton Park synagogue last year, which saw the first murder of Jews simply for being Jews in Britain in modern times. It could be the conviction of a far-right racist for the 2017 attack on Finsbury Park mosque. Then there is a wave of public alarm. Ministers promise action, time passes, media attention moves on and inertia sets in as the Government, the Opposition, the security services, the police, advisers and academics retreat into their siloes and disagree about solutions. Ministers are then reshuffled or a general election takes place, and we go back to square one until the next time.

Only two recent Prime Ministers seriously attempted to break the cycle: Tony Blair and my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton. Both understood that in our centralised system, only a cross-government counterextremism strategy driven from Downing Street will produce results. Such a strategy would ensure that the Government themselves do not patronise, give platforms to, fund or engage with extremists; that prisons are run by governors and staff, not by gangs; that extremist mobs do not dictate terms to the police, as happened recently in Birmingham; that hospitals and surgeries are neutral spaces; that posters on walls and lanyards worn by staff do not advertise political causes; that demonstrators and marchers do not incite violence by calling, for example, for the intifada to be globalised; and that funds raised for charities do not end up funding terror.

I pay tribute to two all-party initiatives that have the potential to develop such a policy. The first is the All-Party Parliamentary Group on defending democracy, led by the noble Lord, Lord Walney, who I am pleased to see will speak today. The second is the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Counter Extremism, chaired by Damien Egan, which has already produced a useful report, Time to Act.

I described the pattern of events in counterextremism policy as a cycle, but perhaps it would be more accurate to describe it as a spiral, one which is descending steadily downwards. I have assumed for the whole of my adult life that our multifaith and multiracial democracy will continue to progress for the better, and, on balance, I still believe that it will, but I also believe that we can no longer be sure. The 2022 disturbances in Leicester, the Aston Villa game scandal in Birmingham, the Manchester synagogue attack, the firebomb attack on the Peacehaven mosque, the outbreak of Palestinian and St George’s Cross flag flying, the rise of the Gaza independents and the push for an “Islamophobia” definition, plus the Sikh and Hindu reaction to it, are signs that our towns and cities are in danger of dividing, at least in part, into ethnic and religious enclaves. It is hard to see how such a future could square with the Disraelian “one nation” ideal or, indeed, with a coherent nation at all.

The Government currently seem too battered, disorientated and bewildered by events to rise to the challenge. The opposition parties are only beginning, at this stage of the electoral cycle, to grapple with it, and Parliament as an institution is running to catch up with the pace of events. I would not claim that this debate is the start of further discussion to come, but I hope it can be an important step along the road, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.