PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Community Engagement Principles and Extremism Definition - 21 January 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if she will make a statement on community engagement principles and extremism.

National security will always come first for this Government, and we will always treat the threat of extremism with the seriousness that it requires. As the Prime Minister said this morning,

“Britain now faces a new threat”—

a threat of extreme violence from people who are driven by material online. They are often now lone individuals who are driven by a twisted desire for notoriety. It is a threat that we must contend with, alongside that from traditional terrorist groups.

The House will be aware that the Home Secretary will make a statement to the House shortly. All aspects of this changing threat will be considered in her rapid review, ordered last year, which will inform the Government’s counter-extremism strategy. The review panel is considering the current understanding of extremism, including Islamist and far-right extremism, and its work will include a focus on how best to tackle the threat posed by extremist ideologies, both online and offline. Early findings were set out in December, alongside initial measures to tackle the challenges that we face. The Home Office will provide a further update on the measures and actions arising from the counter-extremism sprint shortly.

Our Department retains responsibility for communities and cohesion policy, and the Deputy Prime Minister has convened a new cross-Government communities recovery steering group to develop a comprehensive strategy to address the underlying causes of divisions in our local communities. In particular, it seeks to address some of the causes of the disorder across the UK following the Southport tragedy last summer. We have made it clear that a new approach is urgently needed, and we have backed that with an initial £50 million from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government community recovery fund to support areas that were impacted over the summer.

This question relates to an announcement made last March by Michael Gove, who was then Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, in which he set out some new definitions of extremism, including the activities of Islamist and far-right groups, and robust non-engagement principles for the Government to apply when there were serious concerns. That is particularly relevant to the MHCLG portfolio, which covers social services departments and other organisations, youth justice and Prevent, through which public services engage at community level with a variety of organisations to gather intelligence, help people to move away from extremism, and intervene and disrupt emerging challenges, such as those posed by grooming gangs. The issues are also important for our often vilified Muslim communities, who contribute so much to our nation.

The principles having been set out, the aim was to set out a new system for structured engagement. However, in July the Chancellor announced £120 million of savings in the MHCLG from “small projects”. It subsequently emerged in answers to written parliamentary questions that an element of that was reduced funding for “legal fees” which were no longer expected

“to arise from the previous Government’s”

cross-party

“approach to extremism”.

A series of Ministers have, since then, found it very challenging to determine exactly what this means, but Ministers have told the House in answer to written questions that the March statement reflects the position of the last Government—in other words, that this Government have chosen to ditch the last Government’s policy on the non-engagement principles.

I am conscious that this is very sensitive, given the statement about the Southport case that we will hear later, but will the Minister answer some questions? Does the Department still adhere to that working definition of Islamism? Does it still have a working definition of non-violent extremism on which public bodies can rely, should they need to defend themselves when challenged? Can he tell the House why Ministers have not been—to quote from the “Ministerial Code”—“as open as possible” on this issue? Will he share with the House details of correspondence and any meetings that have taken place, and, in particular, the membership of the steering group to which he referred, so that more transparency and confidence surrounds this process?

I do not think it will be a revelation for Members to hear that a change of Government often means a change of approach to what have been shared views and shared problems. I believe that the last Government deeply wanted to tackle extremism in all its forms across the country, and we share that desire. Where we differ is on the approach taken by the Department.

In last year’s written ministerial statement—this, I have to say, is something with which I simply cannot agree—the previous Secretary of State, for whom I have a lot of respect, chose for the Department to assume a great deal of responsibility for the issue, essentially on the part of the entire Government. I do not think that is the right approach, for very good reasons. Counter-extremism should, I believe, be the fundamental purview of the Home Office, not least because of the Home Office’s access to confidential information that is often not available to the MCHLG. The approach that we have chosen in the new Government is to have a cross-Government but Home Office-led counter-extremism sprint, which will lead in due course to a counter-extremism strategy that shapes the Government’s way forward. That is a different approach to what is, I believe, a commonly understood problem.

I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the previous process as robust. Let us be honest: it was not used. The previous Secretary of State made a detailed written ministerial statement and set out a system that could have led on this issue. He named some organisations, but it was very clear in the written ministerial statement that he was not prejudging any process for those organisations, and he subsequently did not use the process. I would question the hon. Gentleman’s attachment to a previous process that the previous Government chose not to use.

On the point about openness, I have answered multiple questions from the shadow Secretary of State and the shadow Minister. I will continue to do so, and we will be as open as we possibly can be. Similarly, with regard to the steering group, I do not think we have made that information public, but I am sure there is no problem in doing so. I will make sure that it is available.

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

At a time when we are seeing such an increase in religious hate crime, including Islamophobia and antisemitism, we all have a duty in this House to be careful about the language we use. I hope that the Government will look at their language, because it is vital for community cohesion that we are careful and do not unintentionally inflame tensions.

There are some really critical issues to consider, not just in this country but around the world. The Minister said that he is looking at the definition of extremism, and at changing measures put in place by the previous Government. Will he outline whether the Government will consult on any new definition? If we are honest and look back, there was a lack of consultation by the previous Government.

I am grateful for the Chair of the Select Committee’s question. Language is important, and it is reasonable and right that our constituents expect us to be robust with those who choose to challenge and undermine democracy and the basic principles that guide our society, but also that we do not use our very privileged platform to give succour to hateful ideas and prejudices. Indeed, one thing that we know about the changing nature of terror is that individuals are taking cues from organisations that stop short of the threshold for inflaming terrorist-type behaviours. They are using that as encouragement, so we all have a responsibility to be measured in our response. With regard to the engagement with the Home Office, we want to make sure that anything that comes out of the cross-Government sprint and into the strategy can be bought into and owned by communities across the country, so there will be engagement.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

As we know, the world is a fast-moving and scary place, and people who feel disempowered and isolated often turn to the internet. They are often vulnerable, and their reliance on the internet for everything in their world puts them at even greater risk. We must work with our community leaders to make the most of the information that they hold, and get early notice of problems.

What worries me is that if we make assumptions and do not work with our communities, there is a risk of authoritarian decision making that affects all of us. What consultation has there been with communities on the changes, and what additional burdens might fall on local authorities following changes to how the Government work? Furthermore, with such extreme things taking place online, especially on the platforms of social media giants based across the pond, what are the Government actively doing to unite faith and cultural leaders, environmental groups, industries and people across generations to foster unity and stop extremism across the whole spectrum?

I agree with a lot of what the hon. Lady’s says about earlier interventions and tackling isolation at its root. As she says, local authorities are really important partners in that endeavour. That is why we will ensure that whatever comes out of our communities and recovery steering group leans into the partnership with local authorities and local law enforcement, where possible, to ensure that the right resources and support are in place.

The hon. Lady asks about engagement and ensuring that we have a contribution from those affected across our faith communities. My noble Friend from the other place, Lord Khan, the Faith Minister, has met representatives of all faiths and will continue to do so. The Government will keep having that important dialogue with different faith groups to ensure that the ideas that we bring forward will be effective and are rooted in real life, but we will also promote inter-faith work, which she mentioned. I know from my own community that when we have had challenges, the best thing we have had to lean on to tackle hate, wherever it might emerge, is the inter-faith relationship.

There is real division in our communities, and extremism is changing at great speed. Although the vast majority of Members in this House treat such division as a tragedy and as something that needs to be solved calmly, there are some, sadly, who appear to view it as a political opportunity. Does the Minister agree that Members need to be calm in their dialogue on this issue, and that when they are not, they should be called out by all political parties?

I have always felt that there were two types of politician. There are those who seek to move things forward politically by bringing people together, and those who seek to exploit division. It is up to individual hon. and right hon. Members to decide which is their personal approach. When there is divisive—or bordering on hateful—language in political parties, we would expect them to resolve that in their normal ways. With regard to leadership in this country, we are certainly the luckiest people in the country. We get to come here every day and tackle these issues head-on in the interests of our communities and our country. Almost exclusively, Members use that platform for good. We have important distinctions and differences, and that is great in a democracy, but we want to bring the country together and move it forward together. That is certainly the approach that I will be using.

Can the Minister reassure the House on the Government’s approach to the Muslim Council of Britain? The previous Government decided to break off engagement with the MCB for very real reasons, including the infiltration into that organisation that had happened. Can the Minister tell the House that he and his Government will not be engaging with it?

Those whom I and all my ministerial colleagues in the Department—and all Ministers including the Prime Minister and across the Government—meet with is a matter of public record, which can be interrogated in its right way. I am going to stop short of providing a running commentary, organisation by organisation, with regard to who we will not meet—[Interruption.] As I say, I am not going to provide a running commentary on that organisation. It is very clear from the record who I do and do not meet.

I was a little bit concerned by the shadow Minister’s conflation of extremism with child sexual exploitation and grooming gangs. Does my hon. Friend agree that how we use language is important if we are to avoid eradicating the social cohesion that many of us have spent many, many years establishing in our communities?

It is important that we are careful with our language and with conflations. One thing I know about, after the many years of building trust in my community, is that it takes a long time to build that trust but it can be lost very quickly if we are thoughtless in the language that we use.

When a crime has the attributes of a terrorist outrage, but the police, in their engagement with the community, proactively announce that it is not initially being treated as such, is that not bound to give rise to public suspicion that the truth is being covered up?

I do not know what in particular the right hon. Gentleman is referring to—[Interruption.] Well, he did not have to use coded language if he meant a specific incident. There is rightly a distinction between what the Government of the day do and what the police do. We are not here to direct the police. In line with what I have said, however, all public bodies need to be careful about the language they use because it has real-world consequences.

Members across the House will know how important community engagement is to building strong communities, and that working together with those whose views we may not share but can respect is really important. I want to pay tribute to the fantastic work of the Bracknell Forest Interfaith Forum for doing exactly that in my community. The Conservatives, when in government, cut funding to the Inter Faith Network, which was working at national level. What can we do to support organisations such as the Bracknell Forest Interfaith Forum to bring religious groups together and to help us understand that we do indeed have more in common than that which divides us?

There was real sadness when the previous Government moved away from interfaith as a model. My hon. Friend the Faith Minister has been clear about how important he thinks it is, and that is why promoting interfaith work has been a core part of the work he has done so far.

We know that a number of the individuals who are radicalised are encouraged to find that radicalisation by high-risk platforms on the dark web. Will the Minister and the Home Secretary ensure that they work together with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that the Online Safety Act 2023 does as it was intended to do, which is to regulate those high-risk platforms, rather than the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport just allowing Ofcom to step away from them and let them do what they like?

I share the hon. Lady’s intent. We know that, whether it is in publicly available online forums or on the dark web, there are people who will use all corners of the internet to promote their views and to promote hateful ideologies. As part of our counter-extremism sprint and the strategy that will follow from that, we are looking very carefully at this and at the tools that we need to tackle it.

We will all be sadly familiar with the shocking and racist remarks made by the Conservative party donor Frank Hester last year. I do not intend to repeat them in this House, so that we do not have to relive them, but does the Minister agree that that kind of language encourages extremism and has no place in our politics?

We all have to be careful, both as individuals and collectively within our parties, about the individuals with whom we choose to associate and from whom we choose to take money, so that we do not send messages that we would not want to send.

The Minister mentioned a rapid review; perhaps he can give the House a timetable. As part of that review, could he include the Charity Commission and ask what charities might be dividing our communities rather than unifying them? Also, could more officials from the Cabinet Office and the Home Office be seconded to his Department so that the decisions around Prevent and this review are taken in a better way?

On the development of the strategy, I do not want to pre-empt the Home Secretary because I am conscious that she is making the next statement. On Cabinet Office resourcing and secondments, our commitment, as the House would expect, is that fundamentally we are one Government and we must find internal ways to work effectively. Come what may, we will not hide behind that as an excuse for why things are not effective. Instead, when Ministers ask questions, we will address them in the spirit of one Government.

I commend both sides of the House on how they have respectfully approached this statement, because that is really important. The Minister talked about the robustness of this topic, and I am keen to pick him up on that, because one tenet in the UK is all about safety and the other is freedom of speech. Can the Government rule out changing any definitions that could lead, intentionally or unintentionally, towards blasphemy laws, because free speech is really important?

The Home Secretary will have the chance to talk about the counter-extremism strategy in due course, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have been looking at the early signs from that review, and these were talked about in December by my hon. Friend the Security Minister. To some degree these were about the places in which hate festers rather than about legislative changes.

Our thoughts today are with the families of those three poor little girls and with everybody who was hurt in that terrible event last summer. It is inexcusable that state agencies missed vital opportunities to intervene in this devastating case, including at three crucial points following Prevent referrals. These failings shine a grim light on the significant cracks in our public services, following years of spending cuts and underinvestment. Will the Minister join me in calling for the public inquiry to consider the role of austerity since 2010 as a contributing factor to these terrible failings?

Again, I am afraid I cannot pre-empt what the Home Secretary is about to say, but the hon. Lady will have the chance to put that point to her soon. In our community strategy and our attempts to ensure that communities are resilient ones where people can live together in harmony, we are of course considering what was said in Dame Sara Khan’s review, and one of the underlying causes that she raised concerns about was austerity. We need to make sure that we have well-resourced public services. We also need to ensure that people do not feel that there is any division in the allocation of resources that is in some way targeted against them. We know that that should never be the case and would never be the case, so of course we are considering that as part of our communities work.

The independent review of Prevent, the Government programme that tries to stop people being radicalised by extremist views, said on its very first page that

“the facts clearly demonstrate that the most lethal threat in the last 20 years has come from Islamism, and this threat continues.”

The last Government knew this to be true. Do this Government?

This Government have taken on the independent review of Prevent, and 33 of its 34 recommendations have been implemented. We are engaged in the counter-extremism sprint, and our counter-extremism strategy will flow from it. The hon. Lady will have a chance to see that.

I will have a go at getting an answer from the Minister, even if he did not answer the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson).

Yesterday, the Department confirmed in answer to a freedom of information request that there is internal Government correspondence about the Muslim Council of Britain that it refuses to publish. Can the Minister overturn that decision, publish the papers and confirm that there have been no discussions and no correspondence within Whitehall proposing re-engagement with the MCB?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the position has not moved. I have previously stated in answer to written questions that we are not meeting the Muslim Council of Britain. [Hon. Members: “Say it again!”] I am not sure I can say it any more clearly than at the Dispatch Box in the Chamber of the House of Commons. The position has not changed from the previous Government.

I thank the Minister for his answers to all the questions. In Northern Ireland, of course, we face extremism from the left and right, but at the same time we have managed to have community engagement, and I believe lessons can be learned. It is essential that our police forces have the wherewithal to deal with threats through an appropriate mechanism. The designation of community threats and extremism is truly essential. Will the Minister outline whether the process of designation can be streamlined to ensure that the police have all the powers they need to work within communities to root out and deal with paramilitaries and extremists, with safeguards for human rights?

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question. His work on the persecution of Christians across the world reads across to some of those challenges in making sure we have cohesive communities across the UK. Of course, policing in Northern Ireland is a devolved matter, so it is not for a Minister in the UK Parliament, but I assure him that we give the best insight to make sure that public institutions are interacting in the best way possible. I often feel for junior officers who, early in their service, are having to deal with what are often quite complicated issues in live time. We want to make sure they get the best information so that they are able to do so.