She said the housing secretary was “setting out his ideas as to what we should do to tackle some of these very extreme views that we are sadly seeing expressed around our streets”.
Tens of thousands of people took part in a protest against Israel’s war in Gaza organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) in London on Saturday – the fifth march in the capital this year. Five were arrested and a counter-demonstrator de-arrested.
The upcoming revised definition of extremist groups would receive “more specificity” and enable the government and other public bodies to ban funding and engagement with Islamist and far-right groups, Mr Gove told the Sunday Telegraph.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:42
Charlotte Church joins pro-Palestine march
Asked by Trevor Phillips about whether this meant there would be additions to the list this week, Ms Atkins said Mr Gove’s comments were a continuation of the warnings about extremism that Rishi Sunak gave in his Downing Street address last week, “namely that there are some people, sadly, who hold views that are contrary to the values that we hold as a country”.
“We should not allow those views to percolate through society or indeed allow them to try to change the way we as a society conduct our democracy, the way we allow parliament to set its own rules and conventions,” she said.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:22
Balfour painting slashed in Gaza protest
Ms Atkins did not name which groups or individuals might fall under the new definition, but pointed to pro-Palestine activists spray-painting and slashing a portrait of Lord Balfour at the University of Cambridge’s Trinity College on Friday, adding “this is not the way we conduct democracy and express our views in this country”.
Advertisement
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
Jewish residents ‘worried about walking in London’ during demonstrations
Pressed on whether the government was planning to ban groups because of the views they hold, Ms Atkins said there was a “longstanding convention” in the UK of “proscription for those groups that meet the very strict criteria under the legislation,” which she described as “the most extreme end”.
But she said “at the other end of the scale” there was concern that in large-scale pro-Palestinian demonstrations “there can be a minority of people who hold and extol views that make the rest of us feel not just deeply uncomfortable, but if you are a Jewish resident of London, some have said they feel worried about walking in London when these demonstrations happen, and that’s not right”.
Risk for government is they seek to draw dividing line where none exists
By Matthew Thompson, Sky correspondent
The government’s plans to create, in Rishi Sunak’s words from outside Downing Street, a “robust framework” for tackling extremism have had a little more flesh added to the bones this weekend.
This coming week, Michael Gove is set to publish a new definition of extremism, which looks like it will link extremism to some attempt to undermine British democracy or democratic values.
The move has prompted howls of outrage from various quarters: civil liberties groups concerned it will suppress freedom of speech, and religious groups such as the Muslim Council of Britain, who fear they will fall foul of a definition they have branded “offensive, ludicrous and dangerous”.
However, one quarter from which there is barely a squeak of dissent is the Labour Party.
Some observers have noted the Tories’ extremism drive is a way to seek a dividing line with Labour. Potentially even to make relations with Labour’s large Muslim vote even more fractious.
But what is clear from Labour’s various pronouncements over the last week or so is that their settled position is broadly behind the extremism crackdown.
Last week, Labour leader Keir Starmer agreed with Rishi Sunak’s Downing Street speech.
On Sunday morning, shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves told Sky News they would wait to see the detail of Mr Gove’s policy, but that it was “right that we look again at the definition [of extremism]”.
Yes, there may be noises off from those on the left of the Labour Party. But the risk for the government is that they seek to draw a dividing line where none exists.
For Labour, the risk is that, like in debates over last week’s budget, they again open themselves to the charge of being little more than Conservatives in a red rosette.
New definition is not attempt to draw dividing line with Labour
The health secretary insisted the new definition was not a political attempt to draw a dividing line with Labour.
She said: “It is precisely because we have seen, sadly, in the last six months or so, this rise in extremist ideas which is making people – other citizens in our country – feel deeply uncomfortable.
“So, it is that balancing act between… freedom of speech, but also the right of citizens to go about their daily lives.”
‘Genuine debate to be had’ about freedom of expression
Justice minister Mike Freer said there is “genuine debate to be had about what is legitimate freedom of expression”.
After speaking at an event in north London calling for the return of the Israeli hostages still held by Hamas, he told Sky News the government needs to “redraw that line so people know what is legitimate and what is extremism”.
Sir Keir Starmer has insisted the “vast majority of farmers” will not be affected by changes to Inheritance Tax (IHT) ahead of a protest outside parliament on Tuesday.
It follows Chancellor Rachel Reeves announcing a 20% inheritance tax that will apply to farms worth more than £1m from April 2026, where they were previously exempt.
But the prime minister looked to quell fears as he resisted calls to change course.
Speaking from the G20 summit in Brazil, he said: “If you take a typical case of a couple wanting to pass a family farm down to one of their children, which would be a very typical example, with all of the thresholds in place, that’s £3m before any inheritance tax is paid.”
The comments come as thousands of farmers, including celebrity farmer Jeremy Clarkson, are due to descend on Whitehall on Tuesday to protest the change.
And 1,800 more will take part in a “mass lobby” where members of the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) will meet their MPs in parliament to urge them to ask Ms Reeves to reconsider the policy.
Speaking to broadcasters, Sir Keir insisted the government is supportive of farmers, pointing to a £5bn investment announced for them in the budget.
Advertisement
He said: “I’m confident that the vast majority of farms and farmers will not be affected at all by that aspect of the budget.
“They will be affected by the £5bn that we’re putting into farming. And I’m very happy to work with farmers on that.”
Sir Keir’s spokesman made a similar argument earlier on Monday, saying the government expects 73% of farms to not be affected by the change.
Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs Secretary Steve Reed said only about 500 out of the UK’s 209,000 farms would be affected, according to Treasury calculations.
However, that number has been questioned by several farming groups and the Conservatives.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:28
Farming industry is feeling ‘betrayed’ – NFU boss
Government figures ‘misleading’
The NFU said the real number is about two-thirds, with its president Tom Bradshaw calling the government’s figures “misleading” and accusing it of not understanding the sector.
The Country Land and Business Association (CLA) said the policy could affect 70,000 farms.
Conservative shadow farming minister Robbie Moore accused the government last week of “regurgitating” figures that represent “past claimants of agricultural property relief, not combined with business property relief” because he said the Treasury does not have that data.
Agricultural property relief (APR) currently provides farmers 100% relief from paying inheritance tax on agricultural land or pasture used for rearing livestock or fish, and can include woodland and buildings, such as farmhouses, if they are necessary for that land to function.
Farmers can also claim business property relief (BPR), providing 50% or 100% relief on assets used by a trading business, which for farmers could include land, buildings, plant or machinery used by the business, farm shops and holiday cottages.
APR and BPR can often apply to the same asset, especially farmed land, but APR should be the priority, however BPR can be claimed in addition if APR does not cover the full value (e.g. if the land has development value above its agricultural value).
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Mr Moore said the Department for the Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the Treasury have disagreed on how many farms will be impacted “by as much as 40%” due to the lack of data on farmers using BPR.
Lib Dem MP Tim Farron said last week1,400 farmers in Cumbria, where he is an MP, will be affected and will not be able to afford to pay the tax as many are on less than the minimum wage despite being asset rich.
A split is emerging in the cabinet, with Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson revealing she will join several of her colleagues and vote against the bill to legalise assisted dying.
Ms Phillipson told Sky News she will vote against the proposed legislation at the end of this month, which would give terminally ill people with six months to live the option to end their lives.
She voted against assisted dying in 2015 and said: “I haven’t changed my mind.
“I continue to think about this deeply. But my position hasn’t changed since 2015.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:41
Details of end of life bill released
MPs will be given a free vote on the bill, so they will not be told how to vote by their party.
The topic has seen a split in the cabinet – however, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has yet to reveal how he will vote on 29 November.
Ms Phillipson joins some other big names who have publicly said they are voting against the bill
These include Deputy PM Angela Rayner, Health Secretary Wes Streeting, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood and Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds.
Advertisement
Border security minister Angela Eagle is also voting against the bill.
Senior cabinet members voting in favour of assisted dying include Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, Science Secretary Peter Kyle, Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy, Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn, Transport Secretary Louise Haigh and Welsh Secretary Jo Stevens.
The split over the issue is said to be causing friction within government, with Sir Keir rebuking the health secretary for repeatedly saying he is against the bill and for ordering officials to review the costs of implementing any changes in the law.
Sky News’ deputy political editor Sam Coates has been told Morgan McSweeney, the PM’s chief of staff, is concerned about the politics of the bill passing.
He is understood to be worried the issue will dominate the agenda next year and, while he is not taking a view on the bill, he can see it taking over the national conversation and distracting from core government priorities like the economy and borders.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Details of the bill were published last week and include people wanting to end their life having to self-administer the medicine.
It would only be allowed for terminally ill people who have been given six months to live.
Two independent doctors would have to confirm a patient is eligible for assisted dying and a High Court judge would have to give their approval before it could go ahead.