Gove says the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) has been working with local authorities, civil society and faith groups.

He emphasises that this is in "areas where social cohesion is most under strain, to de-escalate tensions and explore the most constructive support we can offer".

He says his department has been told about widespread "unease" over safety and security in some organisations, and that some councillors have even been "threatened with violence".

He says this is the "chilling effect" of these extremist groups on our local democracy.

Gove says the government's new definition of extremism makes it clear that extremism can lead to radicalisation and ultimately acts of terrorism.

He says most extremist materials and activities are not illegal and do not meet the terrorism threshold – Neo-Nazi and Islamist groups are examples of this operating legally in the UK, but working towards the replacement of democracy with their ideologies, he says.

Michael Gove opens his statement by calling the UK a "success story" that is a multi-national, multi-ethnic and multi-faith democracy. He says the country is "stronger because of our diversity". But he follows up by saying that democracy and the country's values are "under challenge" from extremist groups that are radicalising young people and driving "greater polarisation" between communities.

Michael Gove is now up on his feet in the Commons and delivering his statement on the government's plan for redefining extremism.

We'll have more from him shortly - you can watch it all by pressing play at the top of the page.

Michael Gove had been due to give his statement on extremism at 11:30 but Penny Mordaunt is still taking questions in the Commons.

It's not known what's causing the delay.

Before Michael Gove speaks, here's a reminder of the government's new definition of extremism.

Extremism is "the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to:

1. negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; or
2. undermine, overturn or replace the UK's system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights; or
3. intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2)."

Communities Secretary Michael Gove is expected to set out the government's new definition of extremism in a statement to the Commons within the next 10 minutes.

We're expecting to hear more detail on the policy, and MPs across the House will also be given a chance to respond.

Stay with us for updates.

If your name's on the banned list, you're not getting inpublished at 10:55 Greenwich Mean Time 14 March 2024

10:55 GMT 14 March 2024

Dominic Casciani
Home and legal correspondent

The extremism plan does not create a new criminal offence. Groups will not be “banned” under a new law which works similar to existing legislation that outlaws terrorist organisations to prevent them organising.

So what will it actually achieve? Think of it as being like a bouncer in Whitehall, holding the velvet rope at the door to the corridors of power. If your name is on the banned list, then you’re not getting in.

Anyone added to the government's actual list won’t be allowed to try to influence policy, meet ministers or receive public funding for projects.

But here’s the thing: This extremism list is not a legal list set out in an Act of Parliament.

So the government concedes that the police, among others, could freely ignore the definition of extremism and talk to who they like.

Crucially, the definition has no role in policing demonstrations.

The government would have to change protest laws for that to happen.

And the law currently is very clear: Police chiefs can only seek a banning order on a march if they have credible evidence that they will not be able to contain a threat of serious disorder.

And none of the Gaza protests so far have come remotely near to that threshold.

New definition of extremism could become messy under legal challengepublished at 10:21 Greenwich Mean Time 14 March 2024

10:21 GMT 14 March 2024

Dominic Casciani
Home and legal correspondent

Governments of all colours have debated the definition of extremism since the 2005 terrorism attacks on London.

The then Prime Minister Tony Blair floated the idea of a list of extremist groups and websites - and David Cameron and Theresa May then followed up by trying to reach a clear working definition after the Conservatives came to power at the 2010 general election.

The original 2011 definition was, say its critics, woolly.

It talked about vocal or active opposition to “fundamental British values”.

But what’s a fundamental British value? It’s subjective.

And this is the problem. When former Prime Minister Theresa May promised to ban extremism - and the pledge appeared in two Queen’s Speeches (2015 and 2016) - the plan came to nothing.

Nobody in government could come up with a working definition because nobody could agree on what was being banned.

Contrast that to the very clear definition of terrorism in the law: the use or threat of violence to influence government or intimidate the public to advance a cause.

And that is the challenge Michael Gove faces. He’s come up with new words, but he's not consulted the public on them. His critics say the plan could become very messy under legal challenge.

Criticism of new definition falls into two campspublished at 09:58 Greenwich Mean Time 14 March 2024

09:58 GMT 14 March 2024

Henry Zeffman
Chief political correspondent

Michael Gove’s announcement today of a new definition of extremism has been widely trailed and briefed over recent weeks.

That means we can already map out the likely contours of the debate around this issue in Parliament later today.

From the government’s point of view, a new definition is needed in order to deal with what they fear is a rising tide of extremism - especially since the 7 October attacks by Hamas on Israel and the subsequent outbreak of conflict in Gaza.

We saw the scale of the government’s concern just under a fortnight ago, when Rishi Sunak stepped outside No 10 and addressed the nation about the issue.

The critiques of the government’s approach roughly fall into two camps.

There are those who believe the government risks creating more division – that was the warning earlier this week from the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, but it is also a view held by some Labour MPs, while three former Conservative home secretaries warned against the politicisation of extremism.

Then there are those who fear the consequences for free speech. That includes some Conservative MPs who worry that people like anti-abortion campaigners or those with gender-critical views could end up being captured by the new definition.

We will get a clearer idea of the kinds of groups the government believes the new definition covers when they publish a list of newly-classified extremist groups, probably within weeks.

Labour has said the new definition raises more questions than answers and is "very unusual".

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Shadow Treasury minister Darren Jones said: "The slight confusion really is that the government has focused on this definition today, which is not in relation to the counter-extremism strategy, which is now nine years out of date, it's not an action plan for agencies and others about what action they should take in communities across the country.

"It's not even a legal definition."

Jones said all the new definition did was "prevent the government from financing organisations or individuals."

Asked if Labour would adopt the policy, Jones said the party would "inherit the status quo" if it were elected at the general election.

Earlier, Communities Secretary Michael Gove told the Today programme the new definition was not about banning organisations.

Watch what he had to say below.

Communities Secretary Michael Gove has been doing the rounds on BBC radio and television this morning, taking questions about the government's new definition of extremism.

He was also quizzed on whether comments from Conservative donor Frank Hester, who reportedly said MP Diane Abbott "should be shot", would fall under the new definition.

Here's a quick look at what he said:

• New extremism definition: Gove was asked why an update was needed now. He said it was vital to be "more precise" about extremism because of an increase in anti-Muslim hatred and antisemitic sentiment "on our streets and on social media"
• 'Choosing our friends wisely': Gove said the new definition would help the government in "choosing our friends wisely" and identify groups that are extremist and shouldn't receive government funding or sponsorship.
• Free speech: Gove rejected suggestions the process would inhibit free speech, insisting that "we cherish free speech in this country". He also said there would not be a banned list where those organisations would sit. The new definition is not about "banning" organisations, he said, but identifying ones that engage in a pattern of behaviour and a particular ideology

• Racism row: Gove was questioned on both BBC Radio 4's Today programme and BBC Breakfast about Hester's remarks. Asked if the £10m Hester gave to the party should be given back or if it had already been spent, Gove said he didn't know, and was "not responsible for how the Conservative party deploys its funds"
• Pressed on whether Hester's alleged comments would fall under the new definition of extremism, Gove said the government would be looking at organisations with a particular ideology, adding that he takes these issues "incredibly seriously" and doesn't want to "conflate those motivated by extremist ideology with an individual comment, however horrific"

The fallout and reaction to these stories will continue to rumble throughout today, so stay with us for the latest.

Image source, PA Media

It is not just opposition parties that have expressed concern about changing or expanding the definition of extremism.

Here's a brief look at some of those views:

• Three former Tory home secretaries Priti Patel,Sajid Javid and Amber Rudd penned an open letter this week warning the government against using extremism to score political points in a general election year. They said cross-party work was needed to "build a shared understanding of extremism and a strategy to prevent it that can stand the test of time"
• Jonathan Hall, the government’s independent review of terrorism legislation, said "every attempt to update the definition of extremism has failed because it’s never clear what you’re trying to prevent
• CEO of Muslim Engagement and Development Azhar Qayum said "delegitimising lawful dissent in this way is itself undermining liberal democratic principles"
• The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, and the Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, said the new definition "risks vilifying the wrong people"

• Zara Mohammed, head of the Muslim Council of Britain, told BBC Newsnight that the definition would lead to the "unfair targeting of Muslim communities"
• An ex-independent adviser to the government on defining Islamophobia, Imam Qari Asim, told Today this morning the definition would potentially "result in more extremism and people going underground"
• Brendan Cox, husband of murdered MP Jo Cox and founder of Survivors Against Terror, said there were "some constructive elements" to the new definition but that the government's approach had been "mismanaged and mishandled"

Gove is next asked whether if someone who gave £10m to the Conservative Party - who allegedly said Diane Abbott MP "should be shot" - would be someone the centre of excellence should look at as meeting their definition of extremism.

Gove says Frank Hester's alleged comments were "racist, it was horrific".

Gove says his understanding is that Hester has apologised for his statement.

He says the new definition would be looking at organisations with a particular ideology.

Gove goes on to say that he takes these issues "incredibly seriously", and he wouldn't want to "conflate those motivated by extremist ideology with an individual comment, however horrific".

As a reminder, Gove was asked a similar question on BBC Breakfast earlier - watch the clip below.

Decisions on whether something should be classed as extremism would be made after "careful and thoughtful process", Gove says.

He's asked if he has a view on whether the Palestine Solidarity Campaign projecting that slogan on the Big Ben should be defined as extremism.

Gove says his role means he could only take a view when informed by rigorous evidence.

Gove is next asked whether using that chant repeatedly, or projecting it on to the Big Ben, would count as extremism.

The communities secretary says it might be a public order issue, but it would be a matter for the police.

If it was an act which was consistent with a pattern of behaviour from an organisation promoting a particular ideological point of view, that would be assessed by the centre of excellence, he says.

Gove is next asked if chanting "from the river to the sea" is a legitimate protest song or counts as extremism.

Critics say it calls for the destruction of the state of Israel.

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign and other activists contest this, saying the slogan refers to "the right of all Palestinians to freedom, equality and justice".

Gove says the single use of a phrase, no matter how offensive anyone thinks it is, would not count as extremism.

He says the government is looking for a pattern of behaviour and an ideology.

Gove adds that the government wants to foster the development of a deeper understanding of extremist ideologies.

Gove continues that the new definition is not about "banning" organisations, but about identifying ones the government should not engage with.

He's asked what reassurance he can give to people that this new definition will not be used to silence people the government of the day does not want to hear.

"An absolute assurance," Gove says, "we cherish free speech in this country".

He says the government does not censor, but everyone has the right to call out views they don't agree with.

Gove is asked next if there is a banned list where those organisations would sit.

He says no, but it will be the case the government will examine organisations and if they fall on the wrong line of the definition, they will be deemed extremist and one "government should not engage" with.

He's then asked if he has decided which groups should be banned and counted as extremist.

He says no, but that there are groups that are of concern but "no decision has been made".