PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Palestine Action: Proscription and Protests - 8 September 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

Before we come to the urgent question, I should remind hon. Members to avoid referring directly to criminal cases that are currently before the courts. There is also an active application for judicial review relating to the proscription of Palestine Action. I have decided to grant a waiver in relation to that case, as it concerns a matter of public order in which there is significant public interest. Members may therefore refer to that case.

(Urgent Question): To ask if the Home Secretary will make a statement on the proscription of Palestine Action and public protest.

Anyone who wishes to demonstrate about the humanitarian situation in Gaza or the actions of any Government, including our own, has the absolute freedom to gather with others and voice their views, provided that they do so within the law, but supporting Palestine and supporting a proscribed terrorist organisation are not the same thing. The vitally important issue of Palestinian rights should not be co-opted by one organisation that has shown that it is willing to use violence in pursuit of its cause. The clear advice and intelligence given to the then Home Secretary earlier this year was that Palestine Action satisfied the relevant tests in the Terrorism Act 2000 and should be proscribed.

Some of those holding placards in support of Palestine Action may not know the extent of its activities. It has conducted an escalating campaign involving intimidation and sustained criminal damage, including to Britain’s national security infrastructure. Some of its attacks have involved the use of weapons, resulting in alleged violence and serious injuries to individuals. Palestine Action’s members have been charged with violent disorder, grievous bodily harm with intent, actual bodily harm, criminal damage and aggravated burglary—charges that include, in the assessment of the independent Crown Prosecution Service, a terrorism connection.

These are not the actions of a legitimate protest group, and for a Government to ignore expert security assessments, advice and recommendations would be highly irresponsible. Were there to be further serious attacks or injuries, questions would rightly be asked about why action had not been taken.

The Metropolitan police has confirmed that a total of 890 arrests were made at a demonstration in central London on Saturday. Most of those were under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 for displaying articles in support of Palestine Action. Thirty-three people were arrested for other offences, including 17 assaults on police officers. As the Metropolitan police has pointed out, that was in stark contrast to the 20,000 people who peacefully marched and attended the Palestine Solidarity Campaign demonstration.

Demonstrations of this scale require a significant policing response. The new Home Secretary joined the Commissioner of the Metropolitan police on Saturday to observe the force’s operations and express her backing for the officers working tirelessly to enforce our laws and to maintain order. The fact that some officers were subjected to violence and abuse is utterly shameful.

It is completely understandable that people rightly feel very strongly about the situation in Gaza. But supporting or being a member of a proscribed terrorist organisation is a criminal offence and will never be acceptable, regardless of the wider context. We all want the suffering in Gaza to end and the remaining hostages to be returned. We all want to see peace. I say to the House that we must keep our focus squarely on achieving those aims and not on one harmful group that refuses to abide by our laws and threatens our public safety.

Order. I do not know who is doing the speeches, but I am going to crack down on Ministers and shadow Ministers if they do not keep to three minutes. I have to get Back Benchers in. Does the Minister agree to stick to the time in the future?

Thank you—I am glad that there is some acknowledgment.

Nearly 1,500 people have now been arrested because of concerns about proscription. There is clearly a problem with violence and intimidation in our politics, and we have to get this right because public confidence is falling, too. I am not here as a supporter or defender of Palestine Action and its tactics. I condemn without hesitation abuse, intimidation and attacks on the police and any political opponent. The case for acting on the group itself was and is strong. We have seen a pattern of violence at its events, and it has not dissociated itself from that violence. But we also see police and refugees being targeted for violence alongside those who want to protest about immigration matters—banners that say, “Kill ‘em all, let God sort ‘em out!”, neo-Nazi groups circling. We cannot ignore the impact on policing on our streets because of these incidents, but this is just not sustainable for our police or our criminal justice system.

There is a difference between people protesting using violence and people protesting the use of proscription. If we do not get the response right, if we continue to arrest those in that secondary category, the seriousness of the term “terrorism” risks losing its meaning and becoming diluted rather than strengthened. Proscription was supposed to be about stopping those inciting direct harm and violence. Going after somebody with a poster testing the boundaries of liberty—many of whom are clear that they do not support Palestine Action, but feel strongly about Palestinian rights or free speech—confuses rather than clarifies the Government’s intention. People must be able to protest what is happening in Gaza, and the focus should be on what is happening in Palestine, not Parliament Square.

I asked for this urgent question because I think it is for us to act. Legislation on public order focuses on specific Acts; proscription orders target specific terrorist groups. Nothing sits in between. Given that, what discussions has the Minister had with the police about distinguishing between members of Palestine Action and people concerned about proscription itself? [Interruption.] The offence of recklessly encouraging support of a proscribed group runs counter to that focus on criminality. If he will not abolish that offence, will he at least set out guidance to the Crown Prosecution Service and the police on any public interest test in using it? The previous Policing Minister—

Order. This is what happens. I granted the urgent question because I thought it was important to hear you, and you were advised that it was two minutes. I think you have now finished or are about to.

I do apologise, Mr Speaker. I was advised that it was three minutes, but that is my fault.

Terrorism is different from terrorising opponents, but both should be criminal offences. Will the Minister commit to a review of that section so that we can get it right for the sake of our democracy?

Order. I believe the advice was corrected to two minutes. [Interruption.] That is correct. I do not want my department to be blamed.

I am genuinely grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing these issues to the House. They are important, and it is right that Ministers are held accountable for them.

I am sure that the whole House will agree with my hon. Friend’s remarks about violence and intimidation, which have absolutely no place in our politics. She will be aware that there is a significant body of work taking place across Government, co-ordinated by the defending democracy taskforce, to ensure that all our elected representatives are able to do their duty and represent their constituents without fear or favour. The Government take that very seriously indeed.

My hon. Friend made a number of points, and I will struggle to respond to all of them. She will understand that the police are operationally independent of Government, but of course we remain in regular contact. It is important to take this opportunity to thank the police for their important work. They come under a huge amount of scrutiny—rightly so—but I think we saw at the weekend an impeccable police operation in which brave officers stood and did their duty, at least 17 of whom were allegedly assaulted in the line of duty.

The final thing to say to my hon. Friend relates to drawing the distinction, as she will well understand, on the absolute right of anybody in our country to express their concern about the desperately difficult situation in the middle east and more specifically in Gaza. The ability to go to the streets and join others in expressing individual or collective concern about unfolding events, be they in this country or further afield, is a cornerstone of our democracy. This Government would never do anything to get in the way of that. It was interesting that tens of thousands of people took to the streets this weekend and were able to express their concern in an entirely lawful way.

My hon. Friend asks about whether we are seeking to review any elements of the Terrorism Act. It is worth pointing her to the recently published article by Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, who said with regard to tackling Palestine Action that

“There is no way ordinary criminal law would be effective against funding, training and recruitment.”

The Government must ensure public safety, and that is what we will seek to do.

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

We—in common, I hope, with everyone in this House—fully and unequivocally support the right to peaceful protest, including on issues in the middle east, whether the hostages who remain captive or civilians in Gaza, whose plight concerns us all. However, in exercising that right to protest, violence is never acceptable. Palestine Action has committed deliberate criminal damage against various premises, used a sledgehammer to attack a police officer, and deliberately sabotaged RAF planes. No matter how strongly people feel about an issue, and whatever the rights and wrongs of that issue, using violence to advance a political agenda is never acceptable. It is not how we do things in this country; we settle things through debate and elections.

The Security Minister has given the House assurances about the necessity of this measure. I have not been briefed, or been offered a briefing on that, but the Minister commands widespread respect across the House, and Members will take his assurances seriously. Will he give an assurance that the police are taking all possible preventive action against Palestine Action where it may be planning future attacks against premises, or future acts of violence, including using the offence of conspiracy to commit public nuisance, under which the police have wide-ranging powers? I join the Minister in extending my thanks to the police for the difficult work they do keeping us safe.

Finally, I will use this opportunity to express my support for a protest that took place on Sunday in Parliament Square, and the Campaign Against Antisemitism march, which I addressed. It was regrettable that neither the Home Secretary nor a senior Minister addressed that march, so will the Security Minister take the opportunity to express the Government’s resolve to combat antisemitism wherever it is found?

I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for his remarks and the tone of them. On his final point, yes, let me take the opportunity, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, to state our absolute abhorrence of antisemitism wherever it rears its ugly head. I hope he knows that the Government will do everything we possibly can to stand against the forces of racism wherever they seek to rear their ugly head.

I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that violence is never acceptable in pursuing a political agenda, and I am pleased that we are able to establish a consensus across the House in that regard. On his point about briefings, we briefed the shadow Minister ahead of the proscription action back in July, and as he knows, I would be happy to brief him on Privy Council terms whenever he should wish. I am also able to give him the assurances that he seeks about the work the police are doing. As a former Home Office Minister he knows that the police are operationally independent, but I assure him that the police will be taking all necessary measures to guard against future attacks. I am happy to speak to him about those matters further, and I am grateful for his support for these matters today.

As I understand, convictions simply for displaying the name of a proscribed group have been extremely rare unless there has been clear evidence of intent to promote a group’s more extreme actions. If that is the case, and as it is clear that the acts of protest and civil disobedience seen in recent days are not acts that would ordinarily form part of a case for proscription, why do the police not simply stop the arrests?

I take the opportunity to acknowledge the difficult job that the police do. In my experience, recently and over a longer period, the police have done an excellent job, often under very difficult circumstances. It is important that we consider proportionality. These operational judgments have to be made by the police, often on the ground and often under pressure or in difficult circumstances. It is also important that we consider that we would not tolerate the kind of activity that we have seen in recent days and weeks from an organisation that was motivated, for example, by Islamist extremism, or by an extreme right-wing ideology. Similarly, we cannot tolerate that activity from Palestine Action, and this Government will support the police in doing the difficult job that we have asked them to do.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

The right to peaceful protest is a cornerstone of a liberal democracy, but events over the weekend have set a dangerous precedent and risk having a chilling impact on free speech and legitimate protest in the UK. The arrest of 857 protesters under terror laws, following hundreds of arrests under the same powers last month, is deeply alarming. The Lib Dems warned that that would be exactly what happened when the Conservatives expanded terrorism powers in 2018. There is no doubt that those using violence, antisemitic abuse or hate speech must face the consequences, but those crimes are already covered by existing law. It cannot be right that simply displaying a placard in support of a proscribed organisation, while peacefully protesting, can result in a conviction and up to six months in prison. Will the Minister urgently review terrorism legislation, specifically as it is impacting the right to protest peacefully, to ensure it is proportionate and contains the nuance that it so clearly needs?

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, as always, for the sensible and reasonable tone in which she makes her remarks, but I have to say that I do not agree that the events of this weekend have had a chilling effect on our democracy. I think it is quite the opposite: tens of thousands of people came to London to exercise their absolute right to demonstrate on matters about which they are concerned. The overwhelming majority of people who came to London were able to do so in an entirely reasonable and lawful way. Only a very tiny minority were not able to do so in that way and deliberately sought to get arrested.

The hon. Lady asks entirely reasonably about necessity and proportionality, and about whether the Government intend to review existing legislation. She has raised that point previously, we have discussed it, and I know that the leader of her party, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), raised it over the summer recess. Of course we look very carefully at legislation, but the Government do not currently have any plans to amend the existing legislation. Not least in the light of the ongoing criminal proceedings relating to Palestine Action and the ongoing judicial review, it would not be appropriate to carry out a review at this time.

We think that the UK’s counter-terrorism legislation strikes the right balance between protecting national security and individual freedoms, including the right to the freedom of expression under article 10 of the European convention on human rights. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove knows the high regard in which I hold Jonathan Hall, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, and she knows that the legislative framework is subject to independent statutory oversight by the independent reviewer. The Government will of course consider any recommendations that he seeks to make. I have advised the hon. Lady previously to get in touch with him; I think that she has and I know that she will want to look very carefully at what he says.

Those arrested were merely holding signs, wearing T-shirts and displaying general support for a group that does not come close to the loosest definition of terrorism. Meanwhile, political pundits and columnists seem free to discuss Palestine Action without fear of criminal prosecution. I do not think that anyone should face arrest for doing that, but it does not seem fair that people can get away with it as long as they are doing it in front of a TV camera. Will the Minister explain how the law is being applied, whether it is being applied fairly and where people are allowed to show support for Palestine Action? It is clear that some people are being allowed to do it, but others are not.

My hon. Friend has a long-standing interest in and concern about these matters. I give her an absolute assurance that the law is being applied fairly. I say to her—I know that she will agree with this—that nobody is above the law. It is important to think about how we collectively seek to respond to those who behave in a similar way but underpinned by very different causes, such as extreme Islamist terrorism or an extreme right-wing ideology. If people were demonstrating on behalf of those organisations in the same way that we have seen people demonstrating in support of Palestine Action, I think people would absolutely want the police to act in the way that they saw them act over the weekend. I say again: the law is being applied fairly; nobody is above the law; and the police need to be able to ensure that they are able to enforce it without fear or favour, and that is what I think they did over the weekend.

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

The burden of policing these protests is falling on certain forces more than others. That was also the case during the disorder last summer. Can the Minister give some reassurance that the Home Office is providing the support that is needed to those forces to ensure that they can manage the protests and so that their doing so does not distract from day-to-day policing?

The Chair of the Select Committee makes an important point. Yes, I can give her the assurances that she seeks. The right hon. Lady is right that recent activity has provided particular burdens on particular forces. The Home Secretary and I, and of course the Policing Minister and colleagues right across Government, work very closely with the police and we will ensure that they have the necessary resources for the important job that they have to do.

Last August, a police officer was hospitalised after being hit with a sledgehammer while responding to a Palestine Action attack on a business near Bristol—a fact that was absent from our debate when we voted to proscribe that organisation recently. The attackers had sledgehammers, axes, whips and other home-made weapons. Does the Minister agree that that crosses the line of any legitimate protest—into terrorism?

Yes, I would.

The Minister has said that no one is above the law and that violence is never the answer. I agree with him and I know that he believes that the law should be wielded with integrity, so when are we going to see the proscription of violent settler groups in the west bank, many of whom are perpetrating a reign of terror on innocent Palestinians in that part of the world but who may be garnering support and raising funds in the United Kingdom?

The right hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of this House and has served as a Minister in the Home Office, so I am sorry to have to put my response to him in this way, but he will understand why I do so: we never comment about matters relating to future proscription. I know that his words will have been heard by colleagues in other Government Departments, as well as in my Department. He makes his points with great consistency—he has raised them with me previously—but I know that he will understand that there is a long-standing protocol, across a number of Governments, that we do not talk about future proscription activity.

I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question, but I concur with some of the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) about people being arrested, including my constituents, some of whom were protesting peacefully.

I want to come back to the issue of the impact on frontline policing. As a central London MP, I am seeing resources being drawn away from my local police to deal with the protests. My constituents want those frontline police officers to be solving crime on their streets; the Minister will understand the sheer scale of their concerns about ensuring the police can get to grips with that locally. Returning to the point made by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, will the Minister assure me that those ongoing discussions with the police are happening, including with the chair of the Metropolitan Police Federation, who said on the “World at One” today that the protests are “not sustainable”?

My hon. Friend raises a very important point, as did the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. She will absolutely understand the importance that this Government attach to the safer streets agenda. I can give her an assurance that we are working very closely with the Metropolitan police and other police forces around the country to ensure that they have the resources they need to police these kinds of protests and activities, alongside the other activities that they are required to police. The Home Secretary, the Policing Minister and I take these matters very seriously. We met senior representatives of the Metropolitan police just last week, but I give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance that we will ensure that the police have the necessary resources to do the job that we ask them to do.

Given the scale of arrests over the weekend and the Minister stating that he has no intention to review legislation, will he commit instead to an independent review of the use of terrorism legislation against people peacefully protesting to see if it is fit for purpose?

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question; I hope that she heard the response I gave a moment ago—that it would not be appropriate to get into a review process at this particular moment because of ongoing legal proceedings. We are incredibly fortunate to have Jonathan Hall KC as the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. He brings a weight of authority and credibility to the process. I know that he has particular views on the issue, and I invite her and other Members to look closely at what he has said about it.

Does the Minister agree that the continued mass arrest of peaceful protesters, many of whom are protesting about the proscription of Palestine Action but would not for a moment support the activities of Palestine Action, is something that we should distinguish and that we should advise prosectors and the police about—not least because the furore around the arrests risks drowning out the rightful protests about the difficult situation in Palestine and Gaza, to which the Minister has referred?

My hon. Friend raises some really important points. For clarity, it is an offence to display support for Palestine Action, but it is not an offence to criticise the Government’s decision to proscribe, so difficult judgments often have to be made by the police on the ground. Let me give her a categorical assurance that this Government will do nothing to get in the way of somebody’s absolute right to protest about a matter about which they are concerned. In many respects, it was incredibly heartening to see tens of thousands of people take to the streets to express their concern in an entirely peaceful and lawful way, and I hope that will long continue.

As I have indicated previously, I have my doubts about whether the terrorism label is most suited to a group that is certainly criminal, certainly violent, and arguably seditious, in its attacks on the assets of our military, but I have a positive suggestion to make. Will the Minister undertake fully to brief the Chairman and members of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which I used to chair but on which I now no longer serve? If they were able to see information that the Minister cannot share publicly and say to us that they were satisfied with the terrorism designation, I for one would find that reassuring.

I am always very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who speaks with a real wisdom about these matters, and I can give him those assurances. We have been in contact with the Committee, which he used to chair; it consists of some incredibly experienced and wise parliamentarians, and we seek to take their counsel at every opportunity—so, yes, we have engaged with them and will continue to do so on this matter and others.

While Palestine Action waged its campaign of intimidation and went about damaging military bases, with very little impact in the middle east, this week the Government will host President Abbas and President Herzog for discussions on a more peaceful future for Palestinians and Israelis alike. Does the Minister agree that, unlike Palestine Action, this Government are actually taking genuine and serious steps to support peace in the middle east?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, and I completely agree. I think there is an absolute point of consensus in this place—and, I hope, much further afield—about the urgent need to secure peace in the middle east. This Government, led by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, will do everything we possibly can to support that important process.

The optics of octogenarian priests being arrested alongside hundreds of peaceful protesters are absolutely awful for this Government. We had only three arrests over the weekend in Scotland, because Police Scotland seemed to deploy a much more conciliatory and community-based approach. Does the Minister support operational independence across the UK? If police forces feel it is in their interests to have different policing arrangements from the Metropolitan police, will he support them and say that there will be no Government interference in their operations?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his engagement over the course of the summer. I can give him an absolute assurance: yes, of course we believe in the absolute importance of the operational independence of the police. They have to make some very difficult judgments, but I hope he agrees that nobody should be above the law; there is not an age limitation with regard to these offences. The police have difficult judgments to make, but in the main they have acted proportionately and without fear or favour, in the best traditions of British policing.

I completely agree with the point about political challenge; that is why we are here today to debate the decision and the policing around it. I hope my hon. Friend will understand that the Government have acted in good faith, as we always seek to do. The advice that the Government received was clear and unambiguous. Palestine Action is concerned in terrorism, and its members have demonstrated a willingness or intention to conduct, in pursuit of its cause, serious violence against persons. Under those particular circumstances, the Government have a responsibility and a duty to act.

As I have mentioned previously, and my hon. Friend will know, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has been widely quoted about his response to the actions that the Government have taken; he concluded in a recent article that there is no way that ordinary criminal law would have been effective against this organisation.

Does the Minister agree that, while in this case, proscription may be a finely balanced decision, the law must be upheld whether you like it or not, whoever you are and wherever you are? Does he therefore share my concern that in this case, there appears to be some regional disparity in the interpretation of the law, as evidenced by the different rates at which people were arrested across this country at the weekend?

As always, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and I acknowledge his assessment of the decision as being finely balanced. As I know he will understand, should this or any Government have taken a different approach, we would no doubt have been in this Chamber debating why the Government had decided to not proscribe. These are difficult judgments, but under the circumstances I have described, the then Home Secretary did exactly the right thing in taking the decision she did.

As for the right hon. Gentleman’s point about regional disparities, he will have heard the comment I made just a moment ago about the operational independence of the police. However, if he has seen particular occurrences that he thinks are not in that spirit, I ask him to write to me. I would be very happy to look at them.

So many people, myself included, are looking at the famine in Gaza and the planned annexation of the west bank with a sense of complete desperation and a lack of agency. People want to demonstrate that desperation through peaceful protest, and it is difficult for many of us to see the mass arrests of people holding placards. I understand that the nature of proscription means that showing support for a proscribed organisation is a criminal offence, but the acts are peaceful, and the cause is so desperate. At the time of voting, the effect of arresting demonstrators was not made clear to us; we must reflect again on the effects of proscription. When assessing whether to proscribe Palestine Action, to what extent did the Government take into account the rights to free expression and free association, including under articles 10 and 11 of the European convention on human rights—not the rights of the proscribed organisation itself, but of the wider cohort who will be criminalised for peacefully expressing support for it?

Of course I agree with my hon. Friend’s point about peaceful protest, and I can give him an absolute assurance that in taking this or any decision, the Home Secretary acts on advice and very carefully considers a range of different factors. He is right to talk about peaceful protest. Peaceful protest took place in London over the course of this weekend, which was very good to see, but at the particular demonstration at which there were a significant number of arrests, 33 people were also arrested for separate offences, including 17 alleged assaults on police officers. None of us wants to see that kind of violent activity. We will work closely with the police to ensure people have the ability to protest in a peaceful way—that is a cornerstone of our democracy—but it is entirely unacceptable that anybody should seek to assault a police officer.

I hear the distinction that the Minister is attempting to make, but the fact remains that almost 1,000 largely peaceful protesters were arrested in London this weekend. I am sure that when we look back on this, we are going to conclude that it was not only a huge waste of police resources, but a chilling moment for free speech in this country. Given that the Government seem so convinced that these people are associated with terrorism, will they commit to publishing data on what proportion of those arrested are actually charged with terrorism-related offences?

I say to the hon. Gentleman—hopefully in a constructive way—that the only distinction I am seeking to make is between those who break the law and those who do not. We saw a very interesting comparison over the course of this weekend; tens of thousands of people came to protest, and were able to do so, expressing their concerns about the terrible situation in Gaza without supporting a proscribed organisation. As I said in my earlier remarks, there is a big difference between being able to protest in support of a legitimate cause and expressing support for a proscribed organisation. That is a criminal offence, and the police have an absolute duty to enforce the law, which is what they did.

Nobody is above the law, yet the Metropolitan police report that a total of 857 people were arrested under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 at the weekend, the vast majority for simply holding placards stating, “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.” Can the Minister confirm whether the Government have received any legal advice concerning the implications of hosting a visit by Israeli President Herzog in relation to the UK’s genocide convention responsibilities, particularly given his recent record of stating that there are “no innocent civilians” in Gaza and personally signing artillery shells destined for use in Gaza? Will any visa application made by the Israeli President to visit the UK this week be rejected, or will he be subject to police investigation if he does arrive?

I understand why my hon. Friend has asked me that question. I hope that he will understand that he is asking me about matters for which I do not have ministerial responsibility. He will also understand that the Government receive a range of legal advice across a range of different Departments. The purpose of this particular response today is to look at the issue of proscription and the recent protest activity. I can give him and the House an absolute assurance that this is a Government who believe in upholding the law. This is a Government who believe in the importance of international law, and we will work with our allies and partners to ensure that international law and domestic law are upheld.

On this day 89 years ago, three founding members of Plaid Cymru handed themselves in after burning the RAF bombing school at Penyberth. Today, they and all their supporters would likely be branded terrorists for non-violent direct action. Lumping Palestine Action with Maniacs Murder Cult and Russian Imperial Movement was calculated, cynical and disproportionate. It has led to the arrest of hundreds, if not thousands, of protesters. What does the Minister think will be the consequences now that his Government look more interested in silencing protest than maintaining policing by consent?

I struggle to follow the logic of the right hon. Lady’s question, given that tens of thousands of people were absolutely able to express their democratic right to protest over the course of this weekend. I am sure she would have seen that. I hope she will understand that this Government have not done anything that interferes with anybody’s lawful right to express their concern about an issue. Just to pick up on one other point that she made, let me give her an absolute assurance that we did not group the three proscribed organisations together for the reasons she—[Interruption.] She is completely mistaken. She has asked me a question, and she might want to listen to the answer. There were two reasons why that decision was taken. Frankly, the first is that this is a Government with a busy legislative agenda, and we need to be efficient with precious parliamentary time. The second and perhaps more important reason is that this Government do not look at the ideological origin of the threat: we will do what we need to do to keep the public safe, regardless of where the threat comes from. That is the right approach, it is even-handed, and it was on that basis that we proceeded.

In recent weeks, a number of my constituents in Stroud have been arrested. Many of them are over 70, and the whole situation seems to have become slightly ridiculous. Does the Minister agree that proscribing is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut?

With great respect, and I do not mean to be flippant, I think it is a rather unfortunate use of “sledgehammer”, given previous events. No, I do not agree with my hon. Friend. I think the actions of the Government have been necessary and proportionate for the reasons I explained earlier. I worry that there are a number of people who seek to express support for an organisation who do not fully understand the activities that that organisation has engaged in in recent times.

Mr Justice Chamberlain granted the judicial review on the basis that the Home Secretary had not consulted Palestine Action before proscribing it. The judge ruled that it was “reasonably arguable” that there was a duty to consult Palestine Action before proscribing it, as reported in The Guardian. If organisations meet a high standard and a high threshold for proscription under the Terrorism Act, why should there be a duty to consult that organisation before proscribing it?

I hope the hon. Gentleman understands that given that there are ongoing legal proceedings, it would be completely inappropriate for me to comment on any legal rulings or judgments that have been made, but I can give him an assurance that when it came to making this decision, all the necessary legal and expert advice was considered very carefully. There is a formal process that enables any organisation that is proscribed to seek a legal right to redress, and the Government are very supportive of any organisation that has been proscribed pursuing a legal avenue of appeal. It is the right of any such organisation to do so, and this Government would never get in the way of that legal right.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not a case of people’s democratic rights to protest being curtailed? The democratically elected Government and Parliament have legislated, Members have proscribed Palestine Action lawfully, and now police enforce the law free from political interference. The law is clear: people are no longer allowed to support this organisation, and to do so risks lawful arrest. Does my hon. Friend further agree that there is nothing to stop people protesting in support of the Palestinians or against this Israeli Government, as long as they so do peacefully and within the law?

I completely agree with all my hon. Friend’s points. He knows and I know, and I am sure the House knows, that had the Government taken a different decision, I would be standing here at the Dispatch Box seeking to justify that decision as well.

May I ask the Minister to reflect for a moment on the fact that this is the largest number of people arrested since the Terrorism Act 2000 came into force? Those people who were protesting on Saturday were protesting at the horror of the genocide in Gaza, and British complicity in it through arms sales and military co-operation and support. They are deeply concerned about civil liberties in our society, and feel that the legislation rushed through this Parliament damages their right to civil peaceful protest in our society.

The Minister knows that the weight of history is against him. He knows that at some point the Government will have to review this legislation, because otherwise the situation will simply get worse and worse. Can he not just bring himself to say now that the Government will look at it again, review the whole situation, and, rather than proscribing peaceful protest in our society, accept that we have a history behind us that brought us all here, and is built on protest and dissent?

The right hon. Gentleman has been a Member of this House for a very, very long time, so he will know that this legislation was not rushed through Parliament. It came through Parliament in the same way that other proscription actions have come through over many, many years.

Let me seek, perhaps, two points of consensus. The first involves freedom of speech. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman was up to at the weekend, but I have a sneaking suspicion that he may have been on the streets of London, and good luck to him. It is his absolute democratic right to protest in the way in which he is well known for doing. The Government have done nothing to stand in the way of him and his colleagues in that regard. Let me, however, say one more thing to him. Although he and I may disagree on many things, I hope that, as supporters of the trade union movement, we agree on the importance of people’s safety in the workplace. He asked me to consider something; perhaps I should ask him to consider the importance of safeguarding people’s safety and security in the workplace, which is not a matter to which the organisation that we are discussing today has given much consideration.

Hundreds of people have now been arrested for terror offences, facing up to 14 years’ imprisonment, for no more than peacefully holding a placard. Most are elderly, and many are healthcare workers, priests and ordinary working people. All are prepared to risk severe punishment for doing what our Government have failed to do. The proscription of Palestine Action is an authoritarian attack on the right to protest. It is absurd, unworkable and unsustainable. Will the Minister, and the new Home Secretary, consider the Government’s position?

This Government and the new Home Secretary will do everything that is necessary and proportionate to keep the public safe. These are difficult judgments that require very careful consideration. Very careful consideration was given to the decision that was taken, and it was motivated by a very strong desire, and a responsibility, to keep the public safe.

May I thank and congratulate the police for arresting successfully so many hundreds of people who broke the law and shockingly supported a proscribed terror group? Does the Minister expect them to be charged and prosecuted to ensure we have a proper deterrent against supporting a proscribed terror group?

Let me first join the hon. Gentleman in thanking the police for the important work that they do. It is absolutely shameful that there were 17 assaults on members of the police doing their job in London this weekend. That is totally unacceptable and rather undermines the credibility of those who say that these are entirely peaceful protests.

With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s other point, I hope he will understand that these are matters for the Crown Prosecution Service, which is independent of Government, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment on them, but I share the concerns that he has expressed.

I abhor the methods of Palestine Action, and indeed any violence in the course of protest, but I understand that four groups have been de-proscribed in the last 20 years. I am sure that the aim is for all banned groups to de-escalate and become legitimate protest groups, so what steps or evidence would be required for Palestine Action to be de-proscribed in the future?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his thoughtful and sensible question. There is a formal legal process to be followed. As I said in response to an earlier question, the Government completely understand that any organisation that is proscribed has an absolute legal right to contest that decision. This Government will not stand in the way of that legal process, and we will respond in a reasonable and responsible way. There is a legal appeal under way. That will run its course, and then we will have a legal ruling. The Government will, of course, abide by that.

Many members of my community were arrested in London on Saturday, including a senior priest, an elderly Jewish man, and a teacher who has spent years with Gazan children and has witnessed the horror of seeing them killed by Israeli troops over the last couple of years. These people are not terrorists. While I am sure all Members of the House agree that anybody attacking serving police officers in the streets deserves to be arrested, does the Minister accept that the use of counter-terror powers is wholly disproportionate to the peaceful action that these people took by simply holding signs, and sets a dangerous precedent for free speech?

I do not accept the hon. Lady’s critique about the precedent with regard to free speech, for the reasons that I have already referenced and because tens of thousands of people were on the streets of London this weekend expressing their free speech. The police have difficult judgments to make. I do not accept her analysis that this was not proportionate. The Government have an absolute responsibility to act when the evidence suggests that we need to take decisions to secure public safety, which is what the Government have done. We stand by that decision, and we will work with the police to ensure that people obey the law. Where they do not, regardless of their age or professional background, I am afraid there have to be consequences.

Many of those arrested over the weekend for simply holding placards were older and disabled citizens and human rights activists, who can hardly be described as terrorists. Considering that the UN human rights chief has warned that proscription dangerously conflates protest with terrorism, does the Minister accept that we at least run some risk of suppressing protest and dissent, through which we obtained many of the freedoms that we enjoy today?

I really do not think that that is the case. At every stage of these proceedings, the Government have been absolutely clear about the important right—the cornerstone of our democracy—of people to protest about matters about which they are concerned. This Government have not done anything to get in the way or prevent people from doing that. We saw that this weekend: tens of thousands of people having their say. They were able to do so in a way that was lawful and did not require them to be arrested, because they had not broken the law. I do not accept the analysis that this has a chilling effect on free speech—quite the opposite. I think it absolutely demonstrates that people can come and demonstrate in a lawful way, and that the police will respond in an appropriate manner.

It is a shame that the Home Secretary could not come here today to defend her Government. Over 1,600 people have been arrested since this Labour Government proscribed a non-violent direct action group for the first time in British history, including elderly people, disabled people, priests, NHS workers and the children of Holocaust survivors. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has condemned this proscription as “disproportionate and unnecessary”, warning that it risks creating a “further chilling effect”. Will the Minister finally admit that his Government got it wrong and that they have threatened and undermined our free speech and right to protest, and will they review and immediately lift this ban?

First, the Home Secretary is meeting our Five Eyes allies who are here for the five-country ministerial. That is incredibly important work in securing our alliances with our United States, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand allies. These are important partnerships that this Government value and that this Home Secretary is investing in on almost her first full day in office.

On the other points the hon. Lady seeks to raise, she has an absolute right, as everybody does, to protest in a lawful way. There is nothing that this Government have done to prevent her or anybody else from doing that. What this Government have done is ensure that we are best placed to protect the public. I am sorry that she does not agree with that—that is her absolute right—but I maintain that support for freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our democracy, and this Government will always enable people to have their say.

I absolutely condemn any action or violence taken against the public or, indeed, the police. However, I wrote to the former Home Secretary twice on this matter, because many legislators here have yet to see evidence that satisfies us about the proportionality of the proscription of Palestine Action and how the Government balance that with the public’s right to protest and freedom of speech. Could I encourage the Minister to review this law, not least because it has an impact contrary to what the Government want, in that the more arrests there are, the more it draws attention to Palestine Action?

I entirely understand why the hon. Lady may wish to raise concerns in the way she has. She made an important point about evidence, and I give her an assurance that we have put into the public domain all the evidence we have been able to. I hope she will understand that there are strict limitations on some things we are able to say for a variety of reasons, not least that there are ongoing police investigations and ongoing criminal proceedings. That limits the ability of Ministers to talk about this issue, but within those constraints we have tried to be as clear as we possibly can about the reasons for this decision. On a number of occasions, the previous Home Secretary and I have laid out the reasons why we took this decision.

Order. I urge the Minister to be a bit more succinct in his responses.

Hundreds of peaceful protesters have been arrested this weekend in the name of national security, but in what way does a peaceful protester’s tactic of holding a banner compromise national security? If the aim of national security is fundamentally to ensure that we can live in a free society where our democratic freedoms are protected, can the Minister not see that the mass arrest of peaceful protesters is an authoritarian measure that undermines, not protects, those freedoms?

I completely acknowledge that the concerns the hon. Member has expressed are entirely genuine and well-meaning. I hope he understands the importance that we attach to the rule of law. We do not think that people should be excepted from the rule of law because they are of a particular age, have a disability or have a particular professional background. That would be entirely unfair. Nobody is above the law. The police have a difficult job to do to police these protests. I gently say to him that the protests we saw over the weekend were not entirely peaceful, with 33 other arrests, including 17 for assaults on police officers. I hope that none of us wants to see that activity in our capital, or anywhere else for that matter.

I thank the Minister for his answers, and I fully agree that there can be no place for violence in our politics. However, does he accept that elderly retired priests and disabled veterans would not be protesting in the way they are if they genuinely believed that Palestine Action was a similar organisation to ISIS or al-Qaeda? Can he provide any additional guidance or advice on how members of the public can legitimately protest against the proscription of this organisation?

First, let me say to the hon. Gentleman that neither the Government nor I are seeking to make the comparison he offers. What we do believe is that people should follow the law. It is a criminal offence to seek to support a proscribed group. The police are doing the job of ensuring the law is enforced. Again, I make the comparison that if it were people protesting about other organisations—extreme right-wing ideological or Islamist organisations—then certain commentators, not in this place but outside it, would seek to view the matter in a different way. We have to be even-handed and fair, and that is what we have sought to be.

Nobody would support the violent actions of some of the people in Palestine Action, of course, but the number of arrests is placing huge pressure on our police. The demographic of those arrested is clearly absurd. The nature of what they are doing is holding a placard in response to the horrors they are seeing on their televisions. We are all, in this House, seeing those horrors. The previous Home Secretary said that many of the people who support the group do not know the nature of the more violent elements of it. Given the apparent imbalance of what we are seeing, is the Minister not concerned that it creates a dangerous precedent when, in future, we try to enforce against people who are actually terrorists and have malign intent on our streets?

As I have said previously, I understand the concerns that are being expressed. The hon. Gentleman refers to somebody holding a placard. They are holding a placard that expresses support for a proscribed organisation, and that is a criminal offence. In an answer I gave just a moment ago, I said that the Government are limited in terms of the detail they can provide about the activities of Palestine Action, for the reasons I have explained. If people are considering seeking to protest and provide their support for this proscribed organisation, I invite them to look very carefully at what that organisation has been engaged in. There has been significant reporting about some of those activities. That might focus the minds of those who seek to support them in future.

The more than 1,000 people who have been arrested include blind veterans, elderly people, NHS workers and even the children of Holocaust survivors, yet the Government are intent on aiding and abetting Israeli firms—51 of them will be exhibiting in London this week at the arms fair—alongside rolling out the carpet, stained with the blood of the children of Gaza, for the President of Israel. Why are non-violent protesters being treated with greater punishment than a Government bombing and starving millions of children? Does the Minister agree that if there was real justice, the Government would arrest the Israeli leadership and send them to the International Criminal Court?

I hope very much that there is consensus across the House about the desperate situation in Gaza and the middle east. I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand that the Government will do everything they can to work with partners and allies to seek to bring a resolution to that desperate situation. He referred to the age of the protesters. I just say to him that the law has to be applied fairly and universally. Therefore, if someone is of a particular age, that does not enable them to break the law, in the same way that it would not enable someone of a younger age to do so.

With over 800 people arrested this weekend, proscribing Palestine Action clearly has not worked as intended. Will the Government urgently review our terrorism legislation to ensure that those who legitimately protest in favour of the Palestinian cause are not treated as terrorists for simply wearing a T-shirt or holding a placard?

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the remarks that have been published recently by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation.

Can the Minister tell me what safeguards, if any, are in place to ensure that terrorism powers are not misused against people exercising their democratic right to protest peacefully against proscription, including elderly vicars holding placards?

That is an entirely fair challenge. That is precisely why we have Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, look at these matters very closely—an expert in this field who is entirely independent from Government. There is respect for him across the House; the Government certainly hugely value his opinion. I would ask the hon. Lady to look carefully at what he has said on these matters.

Sixteen hundred individuals—mainly senior citizens—have been arrested. The Minister will understand that this is not just a big operation, but one that involves taxpayers’ money, with millions of pounds spent on arrests, and no doubt millions spent on legal aid if people are prosecuted in our courts system. Will the Minister release the legal advice upon which this proscription took place so that the public can see whether taxpayer money is being used effectively?

There is a process in place when the Home Secretary makes decisions on proscription. As part of that process, she will, of course, consider legal advice, as well as advice from experts right across Government and law enforcement. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that these decisions are not taken lightly. No Government and no Home Secretary would seek to take these decisions lightly, and the previous Home Secretary certainly did not do so.

Our free speech is protected under the European convention on human rights, and we should view with great suspicion anybody who would remove the United Kingdom’s signature from that convention. This Government’s proscription of Palestine Action has led to the arrest of more than 1,000 peaceful protesters—another assault on freedom of expression. I urge the Government to review these powers, which also risk undermining our anti-terrorism laws.

The hon. Gentleman will have heard the response I gave earlier to questions on that specific point. I would gently say to him that 17 police officers were assaulted over the weekend, and, while I completely understand why people want to refer to non-violent protest, and I completely accept that the majority of people were behaving in a non-violent way, I hope that he and others will join with me in absolutely condemning any attack on the police that took place over the weekend.

I thank the Minister for all his answers. I was and am pleased to see steps to ensure that protesters who were outside the realms of peaceful protest and demonstrating support for a proscribed organisation were dealt with in terms that line up with the law. Palestine Action’s illegal street protests are impacting the police’s ability to do their normal job. Does the Minister believe there are enough police officers to deal with more of these scenarios, and how will the Government ensure that policing on the ground in communities is not sacrificed in order to police these protests?

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I can give him an absolute assurance that we work very closely with the police to ensure that they have the resources they need and the necessary legislative framework in order to do their difficult job. As he will understand from his own part of the world, it is important that the police are able to enforce the law without fear or favour. It is worth pointing out that the police work closely with organisers each week to facilitate safe, lawful protests, and I know that they will continue to do so. Hundreds of thousands of people have been able to make their voices heard, while only a very tiny minority have been arrested for breaking the law.