Gove names groups as he outlines new extremism definition in Commons

PA MediaCopyright: PA Media

Communities Secretary Michael Gove has unveiled the government's long-trailed new definition of extremism.

Here's a recap of what happened today:

• Delivering a statement to the Commons, Gove named five groups that would be assessed against the new definition: The British National Socialist Movement and Patriotic Alternative, as well as the Muslim Association of Britain, Cage, and MEND

• Gove said a new definition of extremism was needed in response to a rise in antisemitic and anti-Muslim hate, adding that many extremists groups are operating legally in the UK
• Gove announced a new counter-extremism Centre for Excellence, as well as funding for some grassroot organisations combatting extremism
• He stressed that free speech remains protected – that conservative religious beliefs will not be infringed upon by the new definition, nor environmental protest groups or anti-trans or pro-trans activists
• Opposition parties and community groups have expressed concern at the new definition

• Jonathan Hall KC, who reviews the workings of terrorism laws, predicted the plan could have unintended consequences - for example groups not deemed extremist could say they had been "cleared" by the government
• London Mayor Sadiq Khan said he feared those who were on the path to joining far-right or Islamist groups could be driven "underground"
• Labour's deputy leader Angela Rayner said her party would work with the government "in good faith", but warned that policies need to "bring people together"
• The SNP's Alison Thewliss expressed concern over the danger the definition could disproportionately target Muslim communities
• But Conservative MP Robert Jenrick said the definition didn't go far enough

London Mayor Sadiq Khan has expressed concern that the newly unveiled definition of extremism could "divide communities".

Speaking to BBC Radio 4's World At One programme, he said: "My concern is some of the people we engage with in some of our programmes, which work with young people, whether it's those who may be going down the path of the extreme far-right, whether it's those who may be going down the path of the Islamist...

"My worry is by labelling these groups, many local authorities, mayors, public authorities won't engage with them and they'll go underground."

Khan added that he was "nervous" it could lead to a situation where many Muslims think it's "them and us".

During Angela Rayner's reply to Michael Gove's statement in the House of Commons, she raised concerns over how the policy had been reported in the media in recent days.

"It's not right that we have spent the last few days poring over a possible new definition in the papers," she said.

"And it's not right that the department has leaked the names of groups that may or may not be covered by this definition when he rightly says this work should be based on due diligence."

Gove replied that an inquiry had been commissioned to look into the source of the leak, adding that leaks are "fundamentally a challenge to the effective operation of government".

Jonathan Hall KC, the official watchdog who reviews the workings of terrorism laws, has predicted Michael Gove’s plan could have unintended consequences beyond the general question of the fairness of the process.

He told BBC News what happens if a group that has unacceptable ideas isn’t labelled extremist for reasons including, perhaps, the risk of legal action.

“Does that mean that group can run around saying, ‘Look, we've been cleared by the government, we're not considered to be an extremist group’," he said.

He also warns that banks could close accounts used by people who are otherwise law-abiding - but, at the other end of the spectrum, people of genuine concern could use it to their advantage.

“There's the possibility that people who are associated with or even claimed to be associated with extremist groups, who've been labelled by the government, could rely upon that as a reason to resist immigration removal," he added.

“They might say if the government's calling me an extremist... I might face torture or mistreatment [in my home country], because [the government there] will see that the UK government has labelled me an extremist.

“I think that's something that we need to think about.”

Labour's Sam Tarry asks Gove how his constituents can have faith in who is being classed as an extremist, and who isn't. He wants to know how people will know that Gove's decisions to label people won't be politically motivated.

Gove gives a one-line response: "Because we'll publish the evidence behind them".

We will leave the Commons debate there and report on the latest reaction to the statement.

Downing Street says a list of organisations covered by the new extremism definition will be published in the "coming weeks".

A No 10 spokesman said the definition had a "very narrow and precise focus" and that there would be a "very high threshold" for its application.

"It is not about those who challenge the government through democratic means, nor those who protest peacefully - we will always protect free speech," he said.

He added that it was similar to the approach taken in other European countries, such as France, Germany and the Netherlands.

Conservative MP Tom Hunt says he is fed up with the weekly pro-Palestinian protests in London being unchallenged.

He asks Gove that, if it continues, will the power over the Metropolitan Police be stripped from London mayor Sadiq Khan and the government give the police a "far stronger" steer.

Gove says his Jewish friends do consider some of the statements and actions at the protests to be fuelling fear. He adds that the Met Police commissioner takes his role seriously and a number of arrests have been made.

Rochdale MP George Galloway suggests the new definitions are "wallpaper" to a culture war for the general election expected later this year.

Galloway continues by saying that more precision on the definitions is needed.

He tells a story about how he was once called "divisive" for calling for apartheid in South Africa to be overthrown. He says that sometimes "those reviled as extremists turn out to have been right all along".

Gove says he "passionately" disagrees with Galloway on "so many issues", but that he has the right to make his case.

Conservative MP Mark Logan is concerned the definition could be a "slippery slope" where people don't feel they're able to speak their mind anymore.

He said he recently attended a rally on Gaza in his local constituency.

Gove replies that he wants to present a "united front against anti-Muslim hatred".

Sir Edward Leigh, from the Conservatives, asks for reassurance that the government's new definition of extremism won't infringe on the "right to offend".

He says people have a right to criticise religions, and equally those with religious beliefs have a right to say what they believe in a free society, "even if it's very unfashionable".

"I couldn't agree more," Gove says, adding that all this statement does is tighten the existing definition of extremism.

Conservative MP Miriam Cates says the new definitions put "legitimate" and "harmless" views at risk of being "criminalised".

She asks if a gender critical feminist will be labelled as an extremist for attempting to repeal the gender recognition act.

Gove says that with the definitions of extremist groups now being "more narrow" than before, it in fact protects free speech.

Labour's John McDonnell asks for more information on the appeal process and whether organisations will have access to legal aid in challenging decisions.

Gove says the government will be "very, very careful" in scrutinising any organisation that has concerns raised and that any evidence will be "clearly laid out".

Conservative MP Rehman Chishti says if ministers will be responsible for defining if something is a "permissive environment" or "intolerant", he says it raises concern because it comes down to the individual minister's own judgement.

Gove says impartial civil servants will advise ministers on definition and that ministers will be informed by academic research.

Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn calls for caution and asks if Gove's statement today has "legal force" and if it will be an "instruction to the police".

He asks for confirmation that there is no plan to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights.

Gove replies that he will "proceed with caution" and says the new definition covers only government engagement and funding.

Conservative MP Kit Malthouse expresses alarm at this new definition of extremism.

He asks Gove whether there really is no appeal process over branding particular groups as extremist, and says putting groups on a government blacklist will have a "chilling impact" broadly in society.

He asks at what stage groups would be able to present a defence, and if an MP disagrees with the definition and works with a blacklisted group, will the government refuse to engage with them.

Gove says the definition today is an update of an existing one, and hopes no MP would want to associate with, for example, some of the neo-Nazi groups he named in his statement.

The SNP's Joanna Cherry asks Gove if he agrees that MPs must be careful not to brand groups "extreme or hateful" just because they don't agree with them.

Cherry says that points of view should not "stifle legitimate debate" and uses a government debate on puberty blockers as an example.

Gove says in response that "respect and concern" should be given to either side of a debate.

The debate in the House of Commons has just come to a close.

Stay with us as we catch you up on what happened towards the end in the next few posts.

Former immigration minister Robert Jenrick says he fears the definition doesn't go far enough "to tackle the real extremists", and non-extremists might have it wrongly used against them.

He asks for reassurance that police will continue to "fairly" implement our existing laws.

Gove says the change on its own "isn't enough" but that it's a "necessary step" and a "much tighter definition" than the previous one.