Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, it is always an honour to follow both the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and the noble Lord, Lord McCrea. Their personal experiences—my family has not been directly affected—are a salutary reminder to this Committee that the choices that we make on this issue are not academic debating society-type issues. They are choices that have very real implications in the real world.

With the amendments in this group, we face a fork in the road. While two of the amendments may be very well intended, I say with respect to those who tabled them that they would take us down a dangerous and wrong road. The third amendment, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and others, would strengthen our opposition to terrorism.

Terrorists and terrorist organisations, whether they are. in a Northern Ireland context, republican or loyalist, or in other contexts Islamists, far-right extremists or a whole range of other bodies, do not just appear. It is right that we do not judge terrorism on the basis of its ideology, but on the basis of its actions. That has been the position that this House and others have taken when deciding on proscription for terrorist organisations. They do not appear simply out of the ether. No one becomes convinced of a particular issue and, that night, picks up a gun or a bomb and goes out and carries out a terrorist act; it is a long process. It is a situation in which people get converted to a position of extreme ideology and extreme action out of that. It is a position in which the message is that the particular terrorist actions that are being carried out are normalised. They are presented as the only alternative way to sort out a problem. A lot of that is based on the surrounding language.

The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, introducing this group, said that he did not see a distinction between somebody saying, “I oppose the Netanyahu Government” and “I support Palestine Action”. With respect, I think there is a deep distinction. One is expressing a political opinion and the other is supporting a proscribed organisation. In a Northern Ireland context, it is the distinction between someone saying, very legitimately, “I am an advocate for a united Ireland” and somebody saying “I support the IRA”. There is a clear-cut distinction and we should draw that distinction.

If Amendments 447 and 448 were to be agreed, we would create an absurd situation. We could have platforms where people get up and urge people to support ISIS, Hamas, the Real IRA or other organisations. None of those things are supporting an individual act of terrorism, but they are clearly drawing people in. They are, if you like, the gateway drug into terrorism. As such, we would create a very dangerous situation where we facilitate in particular young people from different backgrounds becoming radicalised and bit by bit being drawn into that terrorist world.

It is critical for the past, the present and the future that Amendment 450 is put forward. On the issue of the past, we know, and we have heard from the last two speakers, of the real impact on and the real hurt for victims of terrorism, from whatever source they come. When someone gets up and eulogises the terrorists of the past, they create great hurt for those families, whether in the situation indicated by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, or, for instance, if someone on a platform was to praise Hamas on 7 October, or refer to those who were involved in the attacks in 9/11 or Bondi Beach as some sort of martyrs for the cause. All those things are deeply hurtful to the families and the victims.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, 60 years ago Parliament passed what I think would be by common consensus one of the most significant pieces of legislation of the 20th century—namely, the abolition of capital punishment. The rationale for that decision was largely based on three principles that are difficult to argue against: first, that in a modern civilised country it was barbaric for the state to decide to kill its own citizens, even after a judicial process; secondly, that whatever protections or procedures were put in place with a judge, jury, tribunal or panel, it is made up of human beings who ultimately from time to time will make mistakes; and, thirdly, that when we are dealing with a situation involving the death of a person, the consequence of a mistake in those circumstances is irreversible. The clock cannot be turned back six months later when new evidence emerges, if that person is dead.

Those principles have held firm throughout the decades, which is perhaps why, in the 60 years since then, there has never been a realistic prospect of that law ever being revoked. But I contend that the legislation before us today reverses and repudiates all three of those principles, with the added expense of offering in return a false prospectus of a painless, easy death.

If this legislation passes, the state will have control over who is eligible for assisted suicide and control over how that is done, and it will ultimately be administering the killing of the individual. Whatever procedures we put in place, the panels will make mistakes. We know that the prognoses that doctors make, no matter how qualified or specialist they are, cannot be got right all the time. But what worries me most is the issue of coercion. This is not simply an academic or hypothetical question. Sadly, we have seen too many cases over the years, particularly those resulting in the tragic deaths of partners or children, in which it has then emerged at a later stage that there were years of abuse and coercion. The reality is that coercion is not easy to spot because it happens behind closed doors. It can be blunt and aggressive, but it can also be sophisticated and subtle—a drip-drip message to a person that they are a burden on their family.

The reality is that even beyond the coercion that comes from others, there is a risk in this legislation of what I would call self-imposed coercion, whereby a person decides or convinces themselves that the burden that they place in terms of caring and financial responsibilities means that they feel compelled to make the supreme sacrifice for their family. As with capital punishment, if we get it wrong on an issue of coercion, we cannot look back six months or a year down the line and reverse that decision.

Finally, to use a classical analogy, today we cross over not only the River Styx but the Rubicon if we accept this legislation. Some of the proponents of this legislation are already saying that it is the first step. We have seen that happen in country after country, perhaps less in a direct change of the law and more in change of practice. While I am sure that we have great faith in this country, we cannot be that uniquely arrogant to believe that we will be the one country where there is not an expansion of the issue of assisted dying.

This Bill, rather than being progressive and permissive, is cruel and regressive. This House should do the mature thing and reject it.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025

Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness and I certainly agree wholeheartedly with her final sentence. I too support a two-state solution, but I also support this SI and I am very grateful to the Minister for his clear explanation of why it is necessary.

I have to say to the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Jones, for whom I have respect—we have often agreed on other issues—that to say that this group is not engaged in serious violence baffles me. I shall just suggest to noble Lords an incident from last August when Palestine Action used a repurposed prison van to smash through the perimeter of a research facility in Bristol. Of the security personnel who tried to intervene to stop them attacking the buildings, one was hospitalised with head injuries, two policemen who came along were attacked with sledgehammers and one ended up in hospital. So, when the Minister describes the tests for terrorism as being, one, to advance an ideological or racial cause, two, the intimidation of the public, and three, serious violence or serious damage to property that endangers life, I struggle to see how those examples do not meet the requirements for terrorism.

I am grateful to the Government for acting swiftly to try to prevent people actually being killed, rather than endangering their lives.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, like others, I had not really intended to speak in this debate, but unfortunately, I have listened at times—while I respect other views—with incredulity at some of the remarks that have been made. This House rightly has a reputation for a wide range of expertise on almost every aspect of public life we can think of. It is often a pleasure to come here and listen to Members who have such in-depth knowledge on a great range of subjects; it is a true education in that regard. But I say, perhaps humbly, that I come from the part of the United Kingdom that has suffered most from terrorism throughout our lives. Sadly, for those of us from Northern Ireland, if there is one thing we have gained knowledge of through our lived experience, it is to know a terrorist organisation and to recognise one whenever we see it.

The Minister is absolutely right: we judge terrorism not by ideology but by actions. There are many organisations whose views I disagree with. There are many organisations out there whose views I find repugnant. All three of these organisations are ones whose ideology I would not find any particular favour with, but that is not a reason to ban them. We judge them by their actions, by their violent conduct, by their disregard for or indeed targeting of human life, by their intimidation, by the damage they cause. This is not just, as was indicated by some, a one-off incident carried out by a few rogue members; we have seen from the information the Minister gave that all these organisations have systematically organised over a long period a wide range of activities which collectively meet the threshold of terrorism.

Rightly, we defend the right to protest and to peacefully protest. Freedom of expression and the opportunity to voice very unpopular views are rightly ones that we should cherish. But when you move towards violent systematic attacks on society, as has been done by all three of these organisations, you cross the line into terrorism. For me, terrorism is terrorism. We go down a dangerous path if we start creating gradations of terrorism and, for example, we see some terrorists as “real terrorists”, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, with the implication that some are lesser terrorists, mild terrorists or terrorists with whom we have some sympathies for their ideological position.

If the argument being made is that the threshold has not been met, what is the threshold? Do we wait until incidents happen in this country that result in a string of dead bodies? Is that really the test we are putting forward? The only solution is that once you have crossed the line, this House and this Government rightly need to show zero tolerance towards terrorism. That is the approach that we as a House should unite around. I therefore strongly support the actions of the Government on all three organisations.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I compliment the Minister for summarising the situation, because no one has done so yet. The question seems to be, as has been so ably put by so many people, the difference between criminal activity and terrorism. There is a general acceptance that the actions of Palestine Action are criminal in all cases. The question we are really asking is, does it cross over into terrorism? I think it does, although I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said about the things that follow from such a proscription, which is something we need to be careful about.

The issue I raise, following on from other noble Lords, is the actions against businesses that had no reason to be acted against. In May this year, Palestine Action claimed responsibility for an attack on a Jewish-owned business in north London. The glass front of the building was smashed and the floor defaced with red paint and slogans including “Drop Elbit”—Elbit being a defence manufacturer. The attack can be classified as antisemitic under the IHRA definition as the business is solely Jewish, as I am. It has no links to Elbit or to Israel, and the actions suggest that Palestine Action held the owners responsible for Israel’s actions.

This is where the difference between purely criminal actions and terrorism starts. Palestine Action is a recruiting agent for the actions that have happened. I defend to the end anyone’s right to belong to any organisation supporting Palestine, the Palestinians, Israel or anybody. That is their right, and in our democracy, we have the right to give that support. For anyone who is currently a supporter of Palestine Action, if it is proscribed, there are plenty of other organisations they can join to push their points that are not points of violence. It is the violence that pushes it into terrorism, and I support the Government on this issue.