Pressure is growing on Labour to sack John Woodcock as the government’s adviser on extremism after civil society campaigners filed official complaints alleging multiple conflicts of interest. The Good Law Project and Compassion in Politics sent the Lords commissioner for standards a dossier of evidence they claim “shows [Woodcock] has a commercial interest in organisations whose clients have been targeted by the very protesters whose activities he seeks to ban”. Woodcock, a former Labour MP, was ennobled as Lord Walney by Boris Johnson in 2020. The following year the Tory government appointed him independent adviser on political violence and extremism and commissioned him to write a report on protest. Among the 41 recommendations of his report produced earlier this year, he called for the effective proscription of some direct action groups, including the climate civil disobedience campaign Just Stop Oil, and Palestine Action, whose direct action protests target companies making weapons for Israel. In simultaneous letters to the prime minister, Keir Starmer, and the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, the campaigners called for Woodcock’s dismissal, saying: “Members of the House of Lords and government advisers must not only act impartially but also be seen to be acting impartially. We believe Lord Walney has failed this test and we ask that you now intervene to terminate his appointment.” The letters come in a week in which pressure has been mounting on Woodcock. On Tuesday, the Byline Times reported that he had already left his adviser’s role, a claim which the Home Office denied and was later retracted. The following morning the Times reported that his position was under review. On Thursday, Carla Denyer, a Green MP, referenced Woodcock in the Commons as she called for a debate around “when a government adviser is formally described as independent”. The dossier attached to all three letters details how, while preparing his report, Woodcock took on work as chair of the Purpose Business Coalition, whose members have included the weapons manufacturer Leonardo and the oil company BP, as well as the Purpose Defence Coalition, which also counted Leonardo as a member. The two bodies are subsidiaries of the wider Purpose Coalition, a project of Crowne Associates, which styles itself as “a cutting-edge strategy and communications agency” and is listed with the Office of the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists. In January, four months before the publication of Woodcock’s report, Rud Pedersen Group, another listed lobbying firm, announced his recruitment as a “senior adviser”. Rud Pedersen counts among its clients the oil and gas companies Glencore and Enwell Energy, and on its website lists “security and defence” as a sector of expertise. Woodcock’s roles with the Purpose Business Coalition and Rud Pedersen Group were listed in his entry to the Lords’ register of interests but his role with the Purpose Defence Coalition was not, the dossier says. The dossier also refers to Woodcock’s connections to Israel, including his chairing of the Labour Friends of Israel group and three expenses-paid trips to the country. Woodcock has been a bitter critic of pro-Palestine protests that have taken place in the UK over the past year since Israel began its latest war on Gaza. Compassion in Politics co-director Jennifer Nadel, a signatory of the letters sent on Thursday, said: “It’s not just Walney’s lack of independence that needs addressing, it is also the hostile climate he has created. He has also used his position to undermine a fundamental tenet of British democracy, the right to peaceful protest. His attempts to brand climate and pro-Palestinian campaigners as extremists has legitimised a sentencing culture which has seen some peaceful protesters jailed for longer terms than violent rioters.” The Good Law Project’s campaigns manager, Hannah Greer, said: “Lord Walney’s influential position as a so-called independent government adviser has been utterly compromised by his conflicts of interest. The current review of his appointment is the perfect opportunity for the Home Office to act on the evidence we have provided.” Woodcock has previously said he applied an “objective standard” while preparing his report. Responding to the latest criticism, he said: “Extreme protest groups and their sympathisers are conducting a concerted campaign to remove me because they oppose my proposals to restrict criminal damage and severe disruption in the name of progressive causes and measures to tackle antisemitism at marches. “My conclusions as an adviser independent of government were meticulously researched, objectively reached, and my interests are all properly declared.”