PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Protest Policing - 11 March 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on public order.

The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Mark Rowley, has requested a prohibition on processions relating to al-Quds Day under section 13 of the Public Order Act 1986. I have consented to that request, placing a ban on those processions for both protesters and counter-protesters that will now last for a month. This is the first ban since 2012, so I wish to explain to the House today why I have done so.

It is important that we start with the context. Initiated by Iran’s then leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, in 1979, al-Quds Day is an event held on the last Friday of Ramadan. The day is marked worldwide by rallies and demonstrations in support of Palestine, including here in Britain. Plans for a procession this Sunday in London have been led by the Islamic Human Rights Commission, an organisation that has been closely associated with the Iranian regime. Of course, this year’s event interacts with the ongoing conflict in the middle east. It comes at a time when the Iranian regime is attacking British forces and bases, as well as those of our allies. It also comes just days after the arrest of four individuals as part of an investigation led by counter-terror police. Those individuals were arrested under the National Security Act 2023 for allegedly spying on Jewish communities on behalf of the Iranian regime.

This context creates clear challenges for the police: heightened attention and therefore larger expected attendance, and heightened tensions between protesters and counter-protesters and therefore greater potential for conflict. The expertise on whether and how those challenges can be safely managed rightly sits with the police, and the legal test is clear. Any request to prohibit a procession must only be lodged with the aim of preventing serious public disorder that could not otherwise be prevented by imposing other conditions on a public procession under section 12 of the Public Order Act. Section 12 conditions typically include specifying the route, location and times of a protest. Under normal circumstances, they are sufficient to ensure protests remain peaceful and the public are kept safe.

However, the commissioner has clearly stated that the Metropolitan police’s view is that serious public disorder cannot be avoided unless a prohibition under section 13 is introduced. That assessment is grounded in the tensions created by international conflict, the scale of the expected march, and the presence of protesters and multiple counter-protesting groups all seeking to march at once.

My first duty is to keep the public safe. Having carefully and thoroughly considered the risk assessment presented to me by the Metropolitan police, I am satisfied that an order under section 13 is necessary. For one month, there will therefore be a prohibition on processions in London related to al-Quds Day involving protesters and counter-protesters, which will come into effect today and end on 11 April. Should the commissioner consider that a further extension is required, he will be able to make a further submission at that time.

I must be clear about what this prohibition does not do. The police and the Home Secretary only have the power to prohibit a public procession. Section 13 cannot be used to ban a static protest, referred to in the legislation as a “public assembly”. Should a static demonstration proceed this weekend, the police will not be able to stop it. Instead, they will be able to impose conditions, such as dictating the precise location and timing. People will therefore be able to exercise their right to peaceful protest, although the full force of the law will be enforced if hate crimes, or other crimes, are committed.

Today’s announcement is confined to specific circumstances, but I know that it will excite scrutiny of the wider issue of policing protests. The House will be aware that I have appointed Lord Macdonald of River Glaven to carry out an independent review of public order and hate crime legislation. His review is ongoing, and I will update the House on its findings at the earliest possible moment. I do, however, want to make a wider point about the right to protest in this country.

What I have announced today is narrowly focused on specific circumstances in a unique moment, but it does not alter an enduring fact. In this country, we rightly pride ourselves on our freedoms, including the right to peaceful protest. It is a precious right and one that I revere, as it sets us apart from autocracies of all kinds across the world. This prohibition is therefore limited and specific. It bans marches, but not static demonstrations, in relation to al-Quds Day. Equally, I must add, there is no prohibition on protesting against the plight of Palestinians, and there never will be. Hundreds of protests have already taken place across the country this year in solidarity with Palestinians, and the Met alone has policed 32. Peaceful and lawful protest, whether for Palestine or for Israel, or for any other cause, must be cherished and protected, and this Government will always defend that sacred freedom.

At the same time, as Home Secretary I have a solemn duty—and it is my first duty—to keep the British people safe. I have been presented with the assessment of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police that he cannot guarantee the security of our capital and prevent serious public disorder without a prohibition on processions relating to al-Quds Day. I have reviewed his assessment, and it is clear to me that my duty to the public and their safety dictates that I must accept his request. It is right that we prohibit these processions, while continuing to uphold our ancient commitments to the freedoms of which we are rightly proud. That is the balance that I have sought to strike today, and I commend my statement to the House.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

I fully support a ban on this march. The police assessment of the risk is right, and, in fact, I wrote to the commissioner a week ago urging for exactly this ban. However, the problems with the al-Quds march go beyond simply the risk of serious disorder. In 2024, 10 people were arrested for the assault of an emergency worker, inciting racial hatred, and public order offences. Chants at al-Quds marches in the past have called for intifada and revolution. Calls for intifada and revolution are calls for violence, and calls for violence have no place on our streets.

A leading speaker at these marches has been Nazim Ali, a man who has demanded that Israel

“be wiped off the map”.

Speaking at a previous march, Ali even blamed what he called “Zionists” for the Grenfell fire. He also said:

“"We are fed up of the Zionists. We are fed up of their rabbis. We are fed up of their synagogues.”

The reference to rabbis and synagogues shows that when this despicable man says “Zionist”, he means Jews. That is clear antisemitism. Speech inciting violence and speech inciting antisemitism, which we have heard at these marches in the past, has serious consequences.

Antisemitism is now rampant. Jews are 10 times more likely to be victims of hate crimes than Muslims. We saw an Islamist-motivated murder at a synagogue in Manchester just a few months ago. In the past 25 years, 94% of all terror murders in the UK have been committed by Islamist terrorists, who also make up 75% of counterterrorism caseloads. Does the Home Secretary share my concern about the fact that that the Prevent caseload is only 10% Islamist in nature, and if she does, what does she propose to do about it?

The organiser of the al-Quds march is the so-called Islamic Human Rights Commission, which, as the Home Secretary rightly acknowledged, is in essence a front organisation for the Iranian regime. A former Iranian Deputy Minister of Culture, Aliasghar Ramezanpour, has said that there is a network of Islamic charities in the UK which are, in his words, not autonomous but funded and controlled by the regime in Tehran. Does the Home Secretary share my concern about that, and what does she propose to do about it? In opposition, the Labour party—I think, rightly—pledged to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Will the Home Secretary update the House on the implementation of that pledge?

I am also deeply concerned about the many events that have been held recently, particularly at universities, lamenting the demise of Ayatollah Khameini—a man who in the last few weeks was directly responsible for the murder of 30,000 of his own people; a man who supported and sponsored terrorism around the world, for instance backing Hamas and the atrocities on 7 October, and who backed various regional wars. Will the Home Secretary join me in condemning those who mourned his demise and celebrated his evil acts?

More generally, the al-Quds marches are a troubling symptom of a growing division in our society, whereby some people define themselves primarily by their religion or their ethnic heritage, and we have seen that spilling over into the conduct of elections. This is deeply troubling and deeply divisive. It undermines the very foundations of our nation, which depend on a shared identity and shared values. I should be interested to hear the Home Secretary’s views on that, and I hope the House will return to the topic.

Let me finish with a broader point. Extremism has no place in the UK. Support for terrorism or violence has no place in the UK. Religious and racial hatred, including antisemitism, have no place here. I believe that when someone who is not a British citizen expresses extremist, violent, pro-terror or racist views, they should have their visa revoked and be expelled, as set out in section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971. The Home Office’s own guidance makes it clear that support for

“extremism or other unacceptable behaviour”

meets that statutory test. Will the Home Secretary use those powers to expel extremists who are not British citizens?

I thank the shadow Home Secretary for his comments and his questions. He began by talking about some of the unacceptable acts of violence and incitement to violence that have taken place at various marches, not just marches relating to al-Quds Day. It is not unusual for multiple arrests to be made at all the different types of protest marches that take place. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will join me in supporting the police as they ensure that the full force of the law is applied at all times and in all circumstances. I have, of course, recognised that there are some complexities in the legal framework and an inconsistency of application. I have asked Ken Macdonald to carry out a review to ensure that there is much more consistency of practice across the UK, and that there is clarity for the police about what they can and cannot do when it comes to some of the things that are said when protests take place. I hope that we can continue to work together across the House on those matters.

The right hon. Gentleman asked a specific question in relation to Prevent. I do of course keep under review the way in which the Prevent programme is functioning. A large number of recommendations have been made over many years, with many reports on the functioning of Prevent. It is important that Prevent referrals are made in line with the statutory requirements and the guidance, and that they are picking up those whom we want to take away from a mindset and an ideology that could ultimately result in harm. I do not think it appropriate for us to set percentage requirements for what should happen in terms of referrals, but it is important that the right referrals are made. We always work with partners who deliver the Prevent programme, and with local authorities and others, to ensure that that is done properly.

On the Islamic Human Rights Commission, the trust that is responsible for that charity is currently subject to a statutory inquiry by the Charity Commission, and it is important that that work is allowed to continue. Once the Charity Commission has reached a determination, I am sure that it will be discussed in the House.

On the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the right hon. Gentleman will know—we have had this discussion many times at the Dispatch Box, and the answers are not all that different from when the positions of our parties were reversed—that we do not comment on matters relating to proscription, but this Government have accepted the recommendations made by Jonathan Hall KC. We will take forward that work at the earliest available opportunity.

In relation to those who are publicly mourning the death of Khamenei, the deceased supreme leader of Iran, this is where free speech butts up against what most of us would consider to be appropriate conduct. I do not mourn the passing of Ayatollah Khamenei, but it is for others to decide what they do and do not support. I am absolutely clear that, whatever methods people use to express their political views, they must do so in line with the law of this land. That law should always be enforced without fear or favour, and I will always support the police in ensuring that that is the case.

The right hon. Gentleman asks about how we work as a society, and I think his questions are about citizens’ responsibilities in this country. I do not think it is for a Government to dictate to their citizens what political views they are allowed to hold or how they should express themselves or their identity, regardless of whether that is religious, ethnic or something else. It is the job of Government to ensure that we have a set of rules and values that are equally applied—our respect for democracy and the rule of law, and all the norms by which our society operates. That means that we accept free speech and people’s ability to have views that might be offensive. Many of us might disagree with those views, but people are still allowed to express them. I would not want to see these very troubling events lead to a clampdown on the freedoms that are so precious to us. There is always a judgment to be made and a balance to be struck, and it is important that the Government always try to strike that balance in the right way.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s final point, this Government have already taken action, and I will always use my full powers under the law to ensure that those who would cause harm in our country with their extremist views are not allowed to enter our country. I will not hesitate to use my powers under the immigration legislation to exclude from this country people who have no right to be here.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s decision to ban this weekend’s al-Quds march. Al-Quds was founded by the ayatollah 40 years ago. It has repeatedly featured support for the Iranian regime and terrorist groups, and often promotes dangerous antisemitism too. Given the growing threat to Jewish communities across the UK, will the Home Secretary now move to proscribe the IRGC, consider sanctions on regime-linked assets, and outline what further steps have been taken to protect the Jewish community?

My hon. Friend will know that the IRGC is already sanctioned in its entirety. As I say, we do not comment on matters relating to proscription, but we have accepted the recommendations made by Jonathan Hall KC. The Government will take those forward at the earliest available opportunity.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

The Home Secretary is aware that we have concerns about her authoritarian tendencies. We have particular concerns about this Government’s enthusiasm for restricting the right to protest and their use of terrorism legislation to proscribe protest groups. The Liberal Democrats place a much stronger weight on the right to peaceful protest than the Home Secretary does. That is her right. The right to protest is a fundamental freedom, and any decision to ban a march must only be made in exceptional circumstances.

On this occasion, however, it is right to take a cautious approach. The Islamic Human Rights Commission has very concerning views on Iran. The organisers of the al-Quds march have expressed support for the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and have claimed that he stood on the right side of history. Clearly, these values are at odds with those of the British public, who would rightly condemn the ayatollah’s oppression of the Iranian people and sponsorship of terrorism across the world. At a time when Iran is putting the safety of British citizens in the middle east at risk with its indiscriminate attacks, it would be inappropriate for the march to go ahead.

Nevertheless, the decision to ban the march highlights a deeper failure by the Government to tackle the underlying threats that fuel such tensions. Labour has dithered and delayed over the proscription of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the organisation responsible for much of the violence and terror emanating from Iran, and for attacks abroad. It is utterly ridiculous that the Home Secretary has already sunk almost £1 million of taxpayers’ money in fighting in court to keep Palestine Action proscribed while dragging her heels on the IRGC’s proscription, even when the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has urged immediate proscription. Will the Home Secretary commit to confronting the threat of the Iranian regime by immediately proscribing the IRGC? If not, will she give the House a date for legislation?

I have to say that the hon. Gentleman’s opening remarks were rather disappointing. Let me remind him of what I have actually said and done in relation to the right to protest. I have allowed the cumulative impact on communities that are affected by protests to be one of the reasons why police can place additional conditionality on a procession or public assembly under sections 12 to 14 of the Public Order Act 1986. I am very disappointed that the Lib Dem spokesperson thinks that is an authoritarian tendency, because we are responding to repeat protests that create real tension in our communities.

We are creating the conditions to enable those protests to go ahead, but with additional conditions as to their location and time, and we are ensuring that that framework is very clear for the police. That is actually an argument for allowing the protests to happen, but not in a way that creates real fear among minority communities in this country. I am very disappointed to see that the Lib Dems have set their face against that and would characterise it as authoritarianism. They are wholly wrong. These are the necessary steps to protect our vital freedoms, as well as our minority communities. The law in this area always requires a balance, and this Government are seeking to strike that balance in exactly the right way.

The only other remarks I have made in relation to protests were immediately after the terrorist attack at the Heaton Park synagogue in Manchester. I suggested that marching the very next day in support of the Palestinian cause is perhaps not British because we should show some compassion to those who are suffering. Those are the only two acts, and the hon. Gentleman set his face against both of them in his opening remarks.

I have already addressed the point about proscribing the IRGC, which is sanctioned in its entirety. We will take forward the recommendations made by Jonathan Hall KC, but the hon. Gentleman knows that that requires legislative change. We must act at speed, but also with care, and this Government will do so. It is important that we do not conflate different issues. A lot of these issues are causing tensions across the country, but the situation in relation to the Palestine Action group is different from the matters that we are discussing today. Members of other parties should not seek to conflate those to score political points. I will leave my remarks there.

I represent the area affected by the Home Secretary’s intervention on public order policing, which I welcome. I listened carefully to her statement, which made it clear that this prohibition is specific, discrete and focused. What I heard was a balancing of the challenges that she and public order policing in London face every single day. The centre of London is home to dozens of synagogues, mosques and prayer rooms, and it is important that I take seriously the responsibility of ensuring that everybody is safe. Over the last week, I have been in regular contact with my constituents on this very topic. Will the Home Secretary work with me to articulate clearly the rules and legislation that are in place to address the very challenging issues that we all face?

I thank my hon. Friend for her remarks and her question, and for the work that she has done on this issue, which I know has affected the people she represents. It is important to note, as she rightly does, that we received a very specific and discrete request from the Met police, who have huge experience in dealing with multiple protests on multiple occasions and who have good policing experience. I take seriously the fact that this is the first time in many years that they have sought such an order, and they have done so because of the unique challenges posed by the planned marches in a few days’ time, particularly the threat of both protests and multiple counter-protests all moving through London at the same time. That represents a very unique policing challenge, but I pay tribute to the Met police for the work that they have been doing to ensure that our freedoms in this country are protected.

My hon. Friend will know that we have already commissioned Lord Macdonald to look at the legislation in this area, and to make recommendations on clarifying the legal framework. I look forward to working with her on all that work once his review is in.

I welcome the Home Secretary’s decision, but as my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary made clear, this speaks to a much wider problem. What steps is the Home Secretary taking to ensure that the United Kingdom cannot be used as a safe haven for the wealth, influence networks or political activity of senior figures connected to the Iranian regime, with specific regard to recent reports that the new so-called supreme leader of the Iranian regime is linked to a network of high-value London properties acquired through associates or shell companies? What steps will she take to close any loopholes or strengthen such sanctions?

We are obviously looking very carefully at the allegations that have been made, and we would of course expect the police and our security services to respond appropriately. We will always work closely with them to ensure that they do so.

The hon. Member raises a broader point about the state threat represented by Iran, which has been discussed in this House on many occasions. He will know of the public comments made by Sir Ken McCallum, the director general of MI5, and others. Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that this Government take all levels of state threat very seriously. We work very closely with our security agencies to make sure that we are always taking the necessary steps to keep our country safe.

The al-Quds Day march, glorifying a despicable, blood-soaked regime, has long been a cause of great concern to my constituents in Hendon. That is why I wrote to the commissioner of the Met asking for the march to be banned, and why I thank the Home Secretary for her resolute action today. However, the threat posed by the Iranian regime to our Jewish community has not ended. Following the arrest of four men for allegedly spying on our Jewish community on behalf of the Iranian regime, what steps have been taken to keep our Jewish community safe?

My hon. Friend will know that a live police investigation is taking place, so I cannot comment or give any additional details on that case to this House until the criminal justice process is complete. However, let me assure him that we work very closely with our colleagues in Counter Terror Policing and our security services to monitor the threats posed to individuals and organisations in our country and take all appropriate measures to keep our people safe.

The Home Secretary may know that I and other Opposition Members have signed at least two letters to the Prime Minister in recent months calling for recognition of the state of Palestine, but I also support the decision the Home Secretary has taken today. I think she has demonstrated seriousness of purpose in taking a very important decision, which clearly commands huge national support. One can be in favour of the decision she has taken and also in favour of the rights of the Palestinian people; the two are not alien to each other.

The Home Secretary mentioned that a static protest could take place in lieu of the march. Does she or the Metropolitan Police Commissioner have the power to limit the time of that specific event, to ensure that ordinary people going about their business are not disrupted and that huge blockages do not take place in the capital in lieu of a moving march?

I thank the hon. Member for the points he made. He is absolutely right—let me agree with him on the first part of his remarks—about the right of people in this country to support the Palestinian people, their right to self-determination and their desire for an end to conflict and recognition of their own state. No decision that this Government have taken prevents anyone from being able to express those political views or to take part in peaceful protest to draw attention to that cause, and all that can continue.

The hon. Member is right about the static protest. There are powers under the Public Order Act for the police to place conditions on static protests, which can relate to both time and location, as well as other measures. Those will be operational decisions for the Met police to make in the coming days.

I thank the Home Secretary for this action, which is proportionate; she seems to have been taking lessons from the Liberal Democrats on that. I reiterate Liberal Democrat calls to proscribe Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and encourage her to come forward with a timetable for that legislation to be delivered. What steps have been taken to ensure effective policing of the static protests, which will go ahead on Sunday, to protect Londoners and our police from potential clashes?

The House will be pleased to know that I decline the invitation to learn any lessons from the Liberal Democrats—not just on this occasion, but for evermore.

Let me reiterate the point about the IRGC. We will bring forward measures as soon as we can. We obviously have to proceed with care, because these are complex matters, and we have to get the balance right in the action we take. However, we have accepted the recommendations made by Jonathan Hall KC, and the Government are working at pace to move forward with delivery.

The conditions that might be placed on a static protest that may or may not take place are operational matters for the Met police. However, I and the whole House should have every confidence in our police, not just in London but across the country. Police forces have been dealing with a huge increase in the number of protests, the variety of protests and the multiplicity of counter-protests that take place, and I think we should pay tribute to the work day in and day out of our hard-working police officers, who manage to keep our country safe while allowing respect for our fundamental freedoms.

I call the Father of the House.

I agree with everything the Home Secretary has said, especially as she is one of the best Conservative Home Secretaries we have ever had! Will she forgive me for asking her to stress just one part of her statement? I have noticed an increasing tendency to say that we should ban marches because we find the views of the marchers thoroughly offensive. Frankly, I find most of the marches in London fairly offensive, because most of them are left wing, but I would defend to the death the right of those people to march. Can she emphasise that there is a very high bar, and that marchers will be banned only if they might incite or cause violence?

I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but I am Labour all day long. I enjoy swatting Conservatives, Lib Dems, Greens and everybody else at my leisure, and I will continue to do so.

The Father of the House is right about the law. There is a high bar for any banning order to be requested or granted under the framework set out in the Public Order Act. He is absolutely right that it should be a high bar. People are allowed to have their own views, and we should not be seeking to shut down views which, although offensive or provocative, are still within the law. It is important that we always ensure that the law is followed, and any attempts to interfere with freedom of expression or assembly should always meet a high bar. I am very satisfied that, in the specific and unique circumstances set out for the public procession that had been planned, that test has been met. Of course, the other protests can and should go ahead, and the full force of the law will always be applied.

What consideration did the Home Secretary give to compliance with articles 10 and 11 of the European convention on human rights on the right to protest? What discussions did the Metropolitan police have with the organisers of this planned march to ensure that it could go ahead safely and would be properly stewarded and properly run? In my experience, the police are very accommodating and keen to have long discussions with march organisers to make sure that the right to protest is maintained in our society. There is a slippery slope here, because banning a march that is not necessarily a very popular march may lead to draconian banning orders on all kinds of protests within our society.

First, on the European convention on human rights, the right hon. Gentleman is right that articles 9 to 11 are relevant to the matters we are discussing. However, those are qualified rights—they have always been qualified rather than absolute rights—which means that the state can limit them in specific circumstances as long as the legal tests of proportionality and so on are maintained. I am confident that the legal arrangements we have in this country, as set out in the Public Order Act, are fully in compliance with our convention obligations, and that there is a very high bar for the powers in section 13 of the Public Order Act. I am satisfied that that high bar has been met on this occasion.

The Met police have been policing the al-Quds Day procession for many years. It is an annual event, and they have policed it even when there has been huge opposition to its going ahead. They have faced a lot of pressure over many years to seek a ban, and they have never done so. I am very confident that they have assessed the risk posed by this procession in the current context, particularly the range and number of counter-protesting marches planned for the same day; managing five different marches at the same time in the same bit of London presents a unique challenge for policing. I think they have made a fair point and a strong case, and I have agreed with them on this occasion.

I very much welcome the statement and I commend the Home Secretary’s judgment on this occasion. The Islamic Human Rights Commission will seek to exploit the loophole offered up under section 13, around the ability to protest in a static way. Has a likely location yet been identified for the static protest? Does she agree with me that it should be away from where it would discommode the general public and somewhere that will not place undue burdens on our policing resources, which are finite?

Any conditions that may or may not be placed on a static protest are matters for the police—those are operational matters. They have the powers available to them and I am sure they will make use of them, in the way they have been doing with protests that have been taking place across the capital for some time now. They would, of course, take into account many of the factors that the right hon. Gentleman raises in his question to me.

Let me caution a little on the description of the difference between a static protest and a moving procession of public assembly. It is not a loophole. The law deliberately treats the two things differently, because the policing challenges of a static protest are different in nature from the challenge of policing a march that is moving from one location to another. The Public Order Act recognises the difference between those two things. The police have the powers to place conditions on the way a static protest takes place. In my opinion, they have made use of those conditions very well to date and I am sure they will continue to do so.

I will bank the fact that the hon. Gentleman agrees with my instincts on this one—perhaps I am not so authoritarian after all. He raises a more serious point about dissidents. We know the threat posed to dissidents here on UK soil by the Iranian regime. He rightly noted an earlier case. Let me assure him that we work very closely with Counter Terrorism policing and our security services on monitoring the threats posed to all individuals in the UK by foreign states. We are always ready to take any appropriate action. Indeed, the police and the security services take action every day.

I very much welcome the Home Secretary’s decision. Iran has a track record of hostile activity in the United Kingdom. We have so many Iranians who have had to flee their home country for safety here in the UK, yet we still see charities effectively operating as proxies for the terrible regime in Tehran. What further action will the Home Secretary take to clamp down on organisations that masquerade as charities?

The Charity Commission has powers to launch its own inquiries and enforce compliance. It has a full suite of powers to take action if it thinks someone has fallen outside of our rules. There is an ongoing Charity Commission investigation into the overall body relating to the IHRC—the trust, rather than the organisation we are discussing here today. I am sure that once the Charity Commission has completed that work it will take appropriate action, and I know that that will be the subject of further discussion in this House. Let me assure the right hon. Gentleman that we recognise the desire by some to use our charities legislation and to find gaps to pursue ends that are not charitable and for which the law was not intended. We will not hesitate to take further action in that area if we need to do so.

Will the Home Secretary care to explain a contradiction? She has taken to ban a peaceful march that has been happening for over 40 years, citing serious public disorder, while the Government continue to permit the far right, who call for serious public disorder outside hotels housing asylum seekers, to protest outside those hotels. In September 2025 at the Tommy Robinson “Unite the Kingdom” march—the Home Secretary might like to know that he is a big fan of hers—violence was sighted, in particular against Muslims. Will that march be banned in future as well?

Each case has to be dealt with on its own facts. The “Unite the Kingdom” march was very large. The police did not seek this power because, based on their own risk assessment, they assessed that it was possible for that march to take place safely and that they could police it safely, as well as the counter march that took place, which was smaller in nature. If they had made such a request, I would obviously have had to consider that request based on the full facts disclosed to me in the risk assessment.

The hon. Gentleman should not conflate multiple different things. There is a very specific risk that is being posed by the march on this occasion, given the international context and given that there will actually be five marches; there is the main march by those behind the al-Quds Day rally and then there are the four counter-protesting marches. He must recognise the unique challenge posed by five marches taking place at the same time in this international context. That is different from every other kind of protest and march that has taken place. I would hope that he does not conflate the two, because that could cause a loss of confidence across our communities.

Marches take place every day on a whole range of issues—international and domestic in nature—but the police almost never ask for those to be banned. In fact, such a request has never been made of me. I think the last time this power was used was in something like 2010 or 2012—many, many years ago. This is a unique situation, given the current context and the unique policing challenge of five different marches at the same time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can focus a little more on the facts, rather than the hyperbole with which he began his question.

I stand, and we stand, for an Iran free of the ayatollah, free of the IRGC, free of a despotic regime that carries terrorism all over the world, and free of the regime that killed 35,000 of its own citizens in January this year. With that mind, may I thank the Home Secretary very much for her decision to ban the al-Quds Day march? It is very important that we in this House take a stand to show that we support those in Iran who are fighting for freedom.

In the light of repeated concerns of law enforcement and community organisations about the risk of public disorder and clashes with protesters, what further steps will the Home Secretary take to prevent groups promoting extreme ideologies from organising events that will incite intimidation or violence against minorities or other vulnerable groups in the United Kingdom?

We already have strong laws and other measures in this country on inciting violence, and I would expect the police to always bring the full force of the law on anybody found to be contravening our laws without fear or favour. It is important that we respect and rely on our legal framework, because we do have one of the strongest legal frameworks in the world on all these matters. The Government will always take further action if it is necessary, but I do believe our current framework allows us to strike the right balance on protecting individual freedoms. Even if they are offensive and even if they are provocative, they should still be protected, but as long as that is within the confines of the law.