Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Young of Acton Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th January 2026 Lords Chamber

I also absolutely support the amendment that says that there should be no public funding for certain groups, which are obviously Islamist extremist groups, and so on and so forth. It seems sensible—but those amendments are very specific and very targeted, and they allow us something to really think about before Report. However, a lot of it is about the fact that we have problems in society and we want to solve them, so we bring in sweeping laws that are going to be anti-democratic and dangerous for everyone, rather than facing up to and confronting the real problems that we have, which are often not legal but cultural and political and caused by cowardice and their not being dealt with by politicians. They cannot always be dealt with via the law.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 370A, which seeks to grant the Secretary of State the power to designate and restrict extreme criminal protest groups—and I declare an interest as the director of the Free Speech Union.

Last Monday, the Free Speech Union was the victim of an attack by a group that meets the definition in this amendment of an extreme criminal protest group. It is a group called Bash Back, which is a militant pro-trans group; it broke into the website of the Free Speech Union, stole confidential information about some of our donors and then published that information on its website and its social media accounts. To get that information removed, we had to apply for an emergency injunction; we then had to go back to court to put that injunction on a firmer footing; and there will be a third hearing or trial at which we try to make that injunction permanent. In the meantime, even though the information has been removed from the group’s website and social media accounts, that website and those social media accounts are still up. It has been extremely traumatic and disruptive—our website is still down. Applying for emergency injunctions and seeing that process through is by no means cheap; it is not entirely covered by our insurance.

One of the arguments we have heard this evening as to why the Secretary of State should not be granted this power is that the existing criminal law framework is adequate to deal with extreme criminal protest groups. I am glad to say that the Metropolitan Police does appear to be taking seriously what is a criminal offence—the data breach and the publication of that confidential data, in our case. The pro-trans group Bash Back has been active for at least six months and the criminal law as it stands has not been adequate to restrain it. This group took responsibility for vandalising the constituency office of Wes Streeting, the Secretary of State for Health. In addition to smashing up his constituency office in Ilford North, it daubed the words “Child Killer” on the wall of his office because he said that he does not want the NHS to prescribe puberty blockers any longer. No one, as far as I know, has been interviewed by the police in connection with that violent assault on the offices of a Member of Parliament: certainly, no one has been arrested. The group followed up with an attack on a feminist conference in Brighton, and the threats and intimidation meant that that conference could not take place.

More recently, the group launched a violent attack on the offices of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, presumably because of the guidance note that the commission submitted to the Government about how to interpret the Supreme Court’s judgment about the meaning of the word “sex” in the Equality Act, which presumably the group does not agree with. It daubed graffiti on the walls of the office and used hammers to smash the glass on the office’s front. I do not suppose that I need to remind noble Lords that the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission at the time was the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, and one of the commissioners at the time was my noble friend Lady Cash. This is an extreme criminal protest group which has seemingly been allowed to operate with impunity because the existing—

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

Forgive me for interrupting—and I have hiccups, which is why I am trying not to interrupt—but the more important point about the attack on the EHRC’s London offices is that it is in a large building shared by several other organisations. Not only were the staff of the EHRC threatened by the very act of the attack, but the other organisations that use the building were also extremely disturbed by what happened, and there have been repercussions for the EHRC as a consequence as a tenant. I cannot say any more than that, but I wanted to make that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention.

The group in question advertises the fact that it breaks the law in order to shut down and silence its political opponents, people with whom it disagrees. It advertises the fact that it engages in criminal activity to advance its point of view, its agenda, on its website and its social media accounts. It uses its social media accounts to recruit additional members of the group. It operates with impunity in the public square, so I do not think it can plausibly be claimed that the existing criminal law is sufficient to rein in a group like this.

Now, I take the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that we should be cautious before granting the Secretary of State additional powers to restrict the activities of protest groups. But I think it is worth bearing in mind that one of the reasons, perhaps, for the overdesignation of groups as terrorist groups under the powers granted to the Secretary of State by the Terrorism Act may be because the Secretary of State does not have enough flexible ways of responding to the threats posed by extreme criminal protest groups. Either he or she designates them as terrorist groups or they are allowed to continue to organise, protest and recruit. This would be an additional power—less extreme, I think, than designating a group a terrorist group.

One critical difference is that if a group is designated a terrorist group and someone expresses support publicly for that group, that can be a criminal offence. That is not the proposal in the case of what the consequences would be of designating a group an extreme criminal protest group. That is one respect in which it would be a less extreme restriction than designating a group a terrorist group. I hope that there would be less tendency to overdesignate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am so grateful for the thoughtful way that the noble Lord is attempting to grapple with these difficult issues. Does he remember the spy cops scandal, for example? Does he understand the difficulty when we constantly try to find ways to treat people who are not terrorists, but who we disagree with even quite viscerally, as quasi-terrorists? Does he understand the difference between the importance of prosecuting individuals for their actions and the dangers of guilt by association, with its chilling effect on free speech? I say this to him as a free speech campaigner.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. The issue is not that the groups in question are advocating points of view with which I profoundly disagree. That is not the basis on which I am supporting this amendment. It is that the groups in question advocate and engage in criminal activity to restrict the liberties of others.

I anticipate that people will say that it is hypocritical of me to support this amendment because I am a free speech campaigner. But the Free Speech Union has always made it clear that we do not think that the right to free speech includes the right to break the law to try to silence other people and to try to deprive them of their right to free speech through fear and intimidation. That is why I have been able to reconcile myself to this amendment, which is an attractive alternative to designating groups such as Palestine Action as terrorist groups.

[Lord Godson (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Blencathra. I pay tribute to him in this context, because of his own lived experiences during the explosion of demos in the last few years in this area, and his own issues in obtaining access to the Palace. Likewise, I have taken testimony for Policy Exchange, which I direct, from my noble friend Lord Shinkwin. My noble friends’ lived experiences should be noted. Of course, it is not just them. Overall, it is part of a coarsening of political life, perhaps as a whole in this country, but certainly in this particular area in which we work, where we legislate.

It is not just about those we agree with and those we do not agree with. It has been said, by one or two speakers, that we do not like Palestine Action, and we do not like the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. This problem pre-dates 7 October. It predates the explosions in those demos. It relates to Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion, which I do not agree with. But it also relates to the conduct, for example, of some ex-servicemen, whom I agree with on legacy issues and lawfare in Northern Ireland but who I have seen behave extremely badly towards some female colleagues of mine who do not work in this place. Similarly, I did not like the conduct of every person who was recently engaged in the farmers’ demonstration here; again, it is a cause which I support. It is across the piece and across the political spectrum. That is a problem which we need to take account of when we say that it is just people we do or do not like.

The issue at hand is the idea—which has been implied by one or two speakers in this debate—that we will become like Belarus or some other right-wing, authoritarian country if we go ahead with these amendments. The problem here is the very reverse: it is not the excessive power of the British state but its weakness and its failure to protect us—most dramatically demonstrated by the demonstrations that we have seen.

The blunt truth, as my noble friend has pointed out, is that too often we have had too many difficulties getting in and out of this House. Indeed, at some stages, we simply cannot get in at all. In my interviews with some senior police officers, they are basically saying, “You cannot seriously expect us to privilege the political classes by having extra protections” of the kind that my noble friend has talked about. Conversely, some noble Lords are quite demoralised themselves; when I have asked them about this, they say, “Well, we’re not very popular, so we’ve got to suck it up”. That is a tragic situation. What is so attractive to me about my noble friend’s amendment is that it asserts the absoluteness of our right to go in through the plenitude of entrances and exits of this House.

We all know that the future of this Chamber is being debated all the time, but for so long as we are here, we must have the right to do the work that we come here to do. One of the glories of today’s debate—including even the speeches of those whom I disagree with—is that we have all been able to get here to this House. I never want again to be in a situation where people cannot get in or out, or feel frightened to do so.

As my noble friend pointed out, the chilling effect is not just for us or for members of staff—I do not think we should be too precious about it; all of us are in public life, so noble Lords will have had death threats and various other forms of intimidation. The status quo ante, as described by my noble friend Lord Blencathra —which certainly obtained when he was first elected to the lower House in 1983—is light years away. We have to revert to that. That is why the necessary rectification that he is proposing is so important.

I agree with my noble friend on several other things, including charting the demise of the Sessional Orders in the House of Commons, and the legislative changes relating to protests in proximity to the Palace. He has already provided examples of the disruptive and obstructive protests around here in recent years. He was able to do that because it has increasingly become a feature of all our lives, and that needs to come to an end as quickly as possible.

There is one foreign example that is important for us all to note: the Dáil of the Oireachtas in Dublin. The Republic of Ireland provides protection for the workings of its national parliament through Section 7(1) of its Offences Against the State Act 1939, which forbids the obstruction or intimidation of any branch of government, including the legislature, from carrying out their functions. If we have anything to look at, it is among other foreign legislatures that are perhaps more zealous and solicitous in the protection of their well-being than we have seen in some quarters here in recent years.

Finally, there is the question of who is doing the demonstrations. As I said, I have been distressed by watching people on my side of the debate not behave properly. I remember watching Anna Soubry, whom I disagreed with on Brexit, being abused. But when one looks at recent history, one will find that we need to go back to a far more rigorous set of processes, where our needs are placed squarely—because of our public duties, not because of any private advantage—to ensure that we can discharge our responsibilities for as long as any of us choose to remain in this place.