Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

15:57

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 30 June, be approved.

I am grateful to the House for its consideration of this draft order, which will see three distinct groups proscribed: Maniacs Murder Cult, Palestine Action and the Russian Imperial Movement.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Jarvis]

I will make a bit of progress, which I do not think is unreasonable.

The proscription of those three organisations will reaffirm the UK’s zero-tolerance approach to terrorism, regardless of its form or underlying ideology.

It may be helpful to set out some background to the proscription power. To proscribe an organisation, the Home Secretary must reasonably believe that it is concerned in terrorism. That means that the organisation commits or participates in terrorism, it prepares for terrorism, it promotes or encourages terrorism, or it is otherwise concerned in terrorism. Some 80 terrorist organisations are currently proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000.

Proscription is, rightly, ideologically neutral: it judges an organisation on its actions and the actions it is willing to deploy in pursuit of its cause. The UK’s definition of terrorism was established in law a quarter of a century ago, and it has stood the test of time and extensive scrutiny since.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Dan Jarvis]

I will make a little more progress before giving way.

The definition has three limbs. First, the use or threat of action must reach a certain level of seriousness, such as serious violence or serious damage to property. Secondly, the use or threat must be designed to influence a Government or intimidate the public or a section of the public. Thirdly, the use or threat must be made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause. Successive independent reviewers of terrorism legislation have upheld the UK’s terrorism definition as effective and fit for purpose, even as the threat from terrorism has evolved.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dan Jarvis]

I will give way in just a moment.

Proscription is one of the most powerful counter-terrorism tools available to Government. Any decision to proscribe is taken with great care and follows rigorous consideration, as noted by Jonathan Hall KC in his report on the operation of the terrorism Acts of 2022.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dan Jarvis]

I will give way to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn).

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am grateful to the Minister. The question that many of us want to put to him is this: why has he linked these three organisations together? He clearly has made a judgment on each of the three organisations independently of each other. I and many others outside, I am sure, think it would be fair if we took individual votes on the three. Many of us are very concerned about the issue facing Palestine Action, and that is the issue we wish to address in the debate.

[Dan Jarvis]

I can say to the right hon. Gentleman that I will move on to that and will explain with real clarity precisely why we have proceeded in the way that we have. I suspect that he has a long memory. I am sure that he will recall that he has voted against proscribing a number of organisations previously, including al-Qaeda in 2001, when the motion was bundled along with 20 other militant organisations, so there is clear precedent for doing this. The reason we seek to do it is to demonstrate that we do not attach any kind of ideological prism with which to seek to make a judgment. The Home Secretary will take a view based on a legal threshold, and that is the basis on which we have proceeded.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for bringing forward this motion. If it comes to a vote, as some have indicated they wish it to do, my party will support the Government. I come from Northern Ireland, and we understand what it means to have security. It is important to have Government, Ministers, the police, the Army, MI5 and MI6, and they all have a responsibility. In relation to the membership of those organisations, is there a list of those who may be members of Palestine Action, for instance? I do not know where they are—there might be some in this House; if there is, perhaps we would understand. Will they be subject to the ruling and proscription as well?

[Dan Jarvis]

I know that the hon. Gentleman speaks with great authority on these matters, borne out of his extensive experience of dealing with these matters in Northern Ireland. If he is a little patient and if the House allows me to make a bit of progress, I will explain and respond to the point he has raised and the points that other hon. Members seek to raise.

If the House will allow, let me turn to the specific measures before us today, taking each of the proposed additions to the list of proscribed organisations in order. First, there is the Maniacs Murder Cult, also known as MMC, which is an insidious white-supremacist and neo-Nazi organisation operating online and across borders. It aims to encourage individuals to engage in acts of violence against people it perceives to be antisocial, including homeless people, drug addicts and migrants, all to further its own ideology and degrade human society through violence.

The Government assess that MMC commits, prepares for, promotes and encourages acts of terrorism. MMC members and leaders have claimed a number of violent attacks globally that were committed in pursuit of the group’s aims. MMC supplies instructional material that could increase the capability or motivation of an aspiring attacker, including a guide that provides information on how to fatally attack someone with a knife and use a vehicle as a weapon. MMC’s members and non-members share its material and other online content, including videos of violent attacks, to encourage further violence in support of its ideology.

On 22 May, a 21-year-old Georgian national known as Commander Butcher, considered to be one of MMC’s leaders, was extradited to the United States, and he is set to stand trial in New York for soliciting hate crimes and acts of mass violence. As set out in the indictment, he is alleged to have recruited individuals online to promote MMC’s ideologies by committing acts of murder, arson, bombing and mass poisoning in New York—acts targeted at members of ethnic minority groups, homeless people and Jewish schoolchildren. As this case illustrates, MMC has a truly transnational audience, which includes people in the UK. It does not matter where the leaders of this network are based if they are capable of inspiring acts of violence and terror in any country. Vulnerable individuals, such as minors, are particularly exposed to the horrific material MMC publishes and distributes online.

This Government will not stand by and allow the terrorist threat and wider societal harms caused by MMC to persist. Proscribing MMC is key to deterring and diverting individuals from engaging with its violent content, and it sends a clear signal to social media companies to remove MMC’s material from their platforms. The threat posed by MMC must be taken extremely seriously, whether it is inspiring acts of violence against our people or influencing young people to commit those acts. We will not hesitate to take action against such groups to keep our country safe.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I agree with the Minister that MMC clearly meets the threshold for proscription, but when did its actions first come to the attention of the Government? Why have they left it so long to bring forward this order? Why did they leave it until it was politically convenient?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to make that final point. There is no political convenience in what we are seeking to do today. We are seeking to ensure the security of our country, and if he has a little patience, I will further make that case to him and to the House.

Let me turn to Palestine Action. The public attention it has garnered should not be confused with legitimacy, nor should a group formed five years ago be conflated with the legitimate campaign for Palestinian rights and statehood, which has existed in our country and in this House for more than five decades. Let me be clear: the proscription of Palestine Action is not aimed at banning protest that supports Palestine. There are many ways in which people can continue to lawfully express their support for Palestine without being a member or supporter of Palestine Action.

[Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)]

The Minister will be aware that the High Court has granted Palestine Action permission for a legal challenge. Rather than the Home Secretary, who is not here, rushing this order through Parliament, should it not be delayed until the judicial process has concluded?

[Dan Jarvis]

We are certainly not seeking to rush this through Parliament; these are matters that the Home Secretary and I have considered for some time. There is a clear route to legal challenge, and if an organisation is proscribed, it has the opportunity to pursue that route. That is entirely within the rights of any organisation that is proscribed, and is a matter for them.

Let me make the important point that freedom of expression and assembly are cornerstones of our democracy. They are fundamental rights, and this Government will always respect and protect them. We will always defend the right of the British people to engage in legitimate and peaceful protest, and to stand up for the causes in which they believe.

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

I often show visitors the statue of Viscount Falkland and its missing spur, removed when a suffragette chained herself to it. I was here when protesters superglued their buttocks to the glass panel above us, causing some scandal and damage. Will the Minister confirm that criminal damage, no matter how creatively or indeed scandalously undertaken, will always be dealt with under criminal law, and not as a terrorist act?

[Dan Jarvis]

I know that my hon. Friend has given this matter serious consideration, and she makes an interesting point. In my remarks, I will seek to evidence to her and others why we have chosen to take this course of action on this group. I hope that when I have made my speech, she will understand why we are proceeding in this way. I was just making a point about the importance of the right to protest. Essential as such rights are, they do not give this group carte blanche to seriously damage property or subject members of the public to fear and violence.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that many of us in this Chamber think that Palestine Action is in a different category from the other two organisations that he is seeking to proscribe. Is he aware that several UN special rapporteurs, including those protecting human rights, say that they have told the UK Government that

“acts of protest that damage property, but are not intended to kill or injure people, should not be treated as terrorism”?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the Mother of the House, because she makes an important point. Before I respond to it, let me say politely and gently to her and others that my strong sense is that if the actions of the group that we are considering had been conducted by an organisation with different ideological motives, she and some of her colleagues would strongly recommend that the Government proscribed them. [Interruption.] That is, I am afraid, the conclusion I have arrived at.

My right hon. Friend mentioned the United Nations. The Government received a letter from the UN special procedures mandate holders at the end of 2024, and the UK Government provided a full response, which has been published. I gently say to her that national security and keeping the public safe are very much matters for this country, not other organisations.

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

This heavy-handed approach threatens basic freedoms and sets a dangerous precedent for all political dissent in the UK. Does the Minister acknowledge that?

[Dan Jarvis]

I do not acknowledge that, and I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the decision we have taken. If he will listen to what I have to say, I hope he will understand why we are progressing in this way.

The attack at Brize Norton on 20 June has understandably provoked shock and anger in this House and across the country, but it was just the latest episode in Palestine Action’s long history of harmful activity. It has orchestrated a nationwide campaign of attacks that have resulted in serious damage to property and crossed the threshold between direct criminal action and terrorism. I hope that goes some way to responding to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) made. Palestine Action members have used violence against people responding at the scene of attacks. For their role in co-ordinated attacks, members of the organisation have been charged with serious offences, including violent disorder, grievous bodily harm with intent and aggravated burglary, which is an offence involving a weapon.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for giving way, and for some of the things that he has said. Everything he has spoken about could be dealt with under criminal law. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) mentioned the suffragettes. I think we need to give the context of a little bit of history. The suffragettes carried out a campaign of window-smashing, poster and paint defacement, cutting telegraph and railway lines and targeted bombing and arson, but specifically avoided harming people. There is a long history in this country of direct action that pushes the boundaries of our democracy. It is very difficult for all of us, but this is still direct action, not terrorist action.

[Dan Jarvis]

I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s point about history, and it is entirely reasonable context for him and others to raise, but ultimately this Government must respond to events taking place in the here and now. The Government have to make sometimes difficult decisions about what measures are required to keep the public safe. He is absolutely within his rights to make comparisons with other groups, but as I will explain, fundamentally the Home Secretary has to take a view on whether a legal threshold has been crossed, and if it has, she has to make a judgment on whether she wishes to proceed.

[Mr Carmichael]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Jarvis]

I must make a bit of progress, because I still have some way to go.

Despite some of its rhetoric, the group’s own materials state that it is not non-violent, and that is echoed in the actions of its members, who have committed atrocious attacks. Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary has concluded that Palestine Action is concerned in terrorism and should be proscribed. The House will understand that I am unable to comment on specific intelligence or to go into details about incidents that are sub judice. However, I can provide a summary of the group’s activities, and it is right that I make the position clear to the House.

Since its inception in 2020, Palestine Action has orchestrated and enacted a campaign of direct criminal action against businesses and institutions, including key national infrastructure and defence firms that provide services and supplies that support Ukraine, NATO, our Five Eyes allies and the UK defence industry. Over time, and most notably since the start of 2024, Palestine Action’s activity has increased in frequency and severity. Its targets have broadened to include financial firms, charities, universities and Government buildings. Its methods have become more aggressive, with its members demonstrating a willingness to use violence.

[Mr Carmichael]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Jarvis]

I will, but I must then make some progress.

[Mr Carmichael]

The Minister has spoken about some of the history of this, but there is more recent history. The last Government introduced the Public Order Act 2023 to deal with Extinction Rebellion. The Home Secretary, who was then on the Opposition Front Bench, listed all the various crimes that could be dealt with. She said then:

“the Government are extending powers that we would normally make available just for serious violence and terrorism to peaceful protest. Police officers themselves have said that this is, ‘a severe restriction on a person’s rights to protest and in reality, is unworkable’.”—[Official Report, 23 May 2022; Vol. 715, c. 63.]

She was right then, and is wrong today, is she not?

[Dan Jarvis]

I will make a bit of progress, because I hope to answer some of the points that the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] I am about to explain to him that specific recent incidents have informed the decision. I understand why he may not want to listen to that, but I invite him to do so, because the context is very important.

[Zarah Sultana]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Jarvis]

No, I will make some progress now.

Palestine Action’s own materials state

“we are not non-violent and we have specific targets”.

The group has a footprint in all 45 policing regions in the UK, and has pledged to escalate its campaign. This disgraceful pattern of activity cannot be allowed to continue. In applying the legislative framework, the Government assess that Palestine Action commits acts of terrorism. In several attacks—

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Jarvis]

I will not give way, because I need to get these important points on the record.

Palestine Action has committed acts of serious damage to property, with the aim of progressing its political cause and intimidating and influencing the public and the Government. These include attacks against Thales in Glasgow in 2022 and against Instro Precision in Kent and Elbit Systems UK in Bristol last year. In such attacks, Palestine Action members have forced entry on to premises while armed with a variety of weapons, and damaged or demolished property, causing millions of pounds’ worth of criminal damage. As the House has heard, Palestine Action members have used violence against people responding at the scene.

During Palestine Action’s attack against the Thales defence factory in Glasgow in 2022, the group caused over £1 million-worth of damage, including to parts that are essential for our submarines. Palestine Action caused panic among staff, who feared for their safety as pyrotechnics and smoke bombs were thrown into the area to which they were evacuating. When passing custodial sentences for the perpetrators, the sheriff said:

“Throwing pyrotechnics at areas where people are being evacuated to cannot be described as non-violent.”

The Government also assess that Palestine Action prepares for terrorism. The organisation has provided practical advice to assist its members in carrying out significant levels of property damage at targets right across the UK. For example, Palestine Action has released an underground manual that encourages its members to create small groups or cells and provides guidance about how to conduct activity against private companies and Government buildings. It explains how to operate covertly to evade arrest and provides a link to a website, also created by Palestine Action, which contains a map of target locations across the UK.

The Government assess that Palestine Action promotes and encourages terrorism, including through the glorification on social media of its attacks involving property damage. Palestine Action’s attacks are not victimless crimes; employees have experienced physical violence, intimidation and harassment, and they have been prevented from entering their place of work. We would not tolerate this activity from organisations motivated by Islamist or extreme right-wing ideology, and we cannot tolerate it from Palestine Action.

By implementing this measure, we will remove Palestine Action’s veil of legitimacy, tackle its financial support, and degrade its efforts to recruit and radicalise people into committing terrorist activity in its name. We must be under no illusion: Palestine Action is not a legitimate protest group. People engaged in lawful protest do not need weapons. People engaged in lawful protest do not throw smoke bombs and fire pyrotechnics around innocent members of the public. And people engaged in lawful protest do not cause millions of pounds’ worth of damage to national security infrastructure, including submarines and defence equipment for NATO. Proscribing Palestine Action will not impinge the right to protest. People have always been able to protest lawfully or express support for Palestine, and they can continue to do so.

I am conscious of the time, so I will briefly turn to the Russian Imperial Movement. RIM is a white supremacist ethno-nationalist organisation that seeks to create a new Russian imperial state. The methods that RIM uses to try to achieve those aims threaten UK, Euro-Atlantic and wider international security and prosperity. RIM conducts combat activity via its paramilitary unit, the Russian Imperial Legion, and has actively fought alongside Russian forces and other pro-Russian right-wing extremist groups in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict. In doing so, the Government assess that it has committed or participated in acts of terrorism.

RIM also prepares for terrorism. It manages a paramilitary training programme known as Partisan, which increases the capabilities of attendees to conduct terrorist attacks. By proscribing RIM, the UK will reinforce our steadfast support for Ukraine’s resistance to Russian aggression and our commitment to counter future threats from extreme right-wing terrorism in the UK and Europe.

Almost two years ago, it was my task on behalf of what was then His Majesty’s Opposition to strongly support the action taken to proscribe the Wagner Group, an organisation that rightly stood condemned for its acts of indiscriminate violence and terror in Ukraine and elsewhere. I hope the whole House will be as united today as it was on that occasion in endorsing the action taken against the Russian Imperial Movement.

To conclude, the first duty of Government is to keep our country safe. When our collective security and our values are threatened, we will not hesitate to act. Today’s proscriptions will send a clear and unambiguous message that this Parliament stands against terrorism however and wherever it manifests itself. Only in applying the UK’s counter-terrorism framework without bias can we maintain confidence in it. I therefore urge Members to support these proscriptions, and I commend the order to the House.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Members will have noted from the Order Paper that this debate is only 90 minutes long—it has to conclude at 5.27 pm—which means Back Benchers will be on a speaking limit of four minutes to begin with and that only a few will get in before the debate has to conclude. I call the shadow Minister.

16:25

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his speech and for bringing this important and very necessary measure to the House. I also thank him for the briefing I was provided with earlier today.

Let us be clear what these measures are and are not about. Do we support free speech? Yes. Do we support the right to protest? Yes. Do we support freedom of expression? Yes. However, the very freedoms that make our democracy what it is are exactly the freedoms that the groups we are considering are putting at risk, which is why this order is needed. The groups we are discussing—Palestine Action, Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement—have nothing whatsoever to do with legitimate protest. They would not be facing proscription if they were demonstrating peacefully, respectfully or legally, as so many groups and organisations across the country do and must continue to be able to do freely. These groups have chosen a different path entirely, and for that reason this action is rightly being taken against them.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Does the shadow Minister agree with me that, if the only acceptable form of protest is polite protest, that is not protest, but permission?

[Harriet Cross]

The right to protest is a hugely important part of our democracy. We support the right to protest and the right to free speech. We do not support a right to commit criminal damage or to intimidate or threaten the public, but that is exactly what these groups are doing and why they are quite rightly being proscribed.

We must be clear-eyed about the broader threat landscape we face. Terrorism remains one of the most serious threats to our national security. Whether it comes from international networks, those radicalised online or extremist groups operating on our soil, the threat is real and evolving and it must demand our constant vigilance. Our security services work tirelessly day and night to keep us safe. They have disrupted countless plots that the public will never know about, but we cannot be complacent. The nature of terrorism has changed—from sophisticated networks to lone actors, from physical attacks to attacks on cyber networks, and from foreign battlefields to our own communities—and our response must evolve accordingly.

We should reflect on what terrorism is. As defined by the Terrorism Act 2000, it occurs when an action’s

“use or threat is designed to influence the government…or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and…the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.”

The full list of actions are detailed in the Act, but they include serious violence against a person, those that endanger life or health and safety, and those that seriously damage property.

Proscription is not a step taken lightly, but it is a strong and necessary tool that the previous as well as the current Government have used and should use to protect the public, and to ensure that our police and security services have fuller access to the resources they need to keep the public, our institutions and our way of life safe. No one could hear the Minister’s description of the actions of Palestine Action, MMR and RIM and consider them to be those of peaceful, legitimate protest groups.

[Ayoub Khan]

Does the shadow Minister accept that there is a distinction in intent between Palestine Action and the other two organisations? There is no intention with Palestine Action to cause injury to people, so matters can already be dealt with in the criminal courts.

[Harriet Cross]

I thank the hon. Member for that, but if Palestine Action is using pyrotechnics against people who are escaping an attack by that organisation, that is intent. If it intends to damage Royal Air Force property and Ministry of Defence property by sabotaging RAF jets at Brize Norton, that is intent. It is showing intent as well as the other organisations.

These groups do not share our values. They do not respect our country. They do not care about our way of life and they show no regard for the safety of our citizens. On the Conservative Benches, we are proud of the actions taken by previous Conservative Governments to strengthen our counter-terrorism framework. We gave our police and security services the powers they needed to confront evolving threats, and we welcome and support the Home Secretary making use of the same powers today.

As the Minister said, proscription is a vital tool and a strong deterrent, but it is only a part—albeit a very important part—of what we need to do to keep our country safe. On its own, it is not enough. It must be followed by enforcement. We will, of course, be watching closely to ensure the police have the resources and the backing they need from the Labour Government to do just that.

As the Minister and I have said, the first job of any Government is to keep their citizens safe. We, as the official Opposition, will always support the Government in that aim. The activities of these organisations have clearly met the threshold for proscription under the Terrorism Act, and we on the Opposition Benches are very happy to support the Government in their aims today.

16:31

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I want to speak specifically about Palestine Action. It is most regrettable that the Government have tabled one order banning three organisations, when it knows that there is political disagreement on Palestine Action. That is no way to bring terror legislation to the House. I want to be clear and to put on the record that I would be supporting the order today if it referred only to the organisations Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement.

Leading legal and human rights organisations Amnesty International and Liberty have condemned the proscription of Palestine Action. Liberty said:

“Targeting a protest group with terrorism powers is a shocking escalation of the Government’s crackdown on protest...This move would be a huge step change in how counter-terror laws are applied.”

Amnesty International UK said:

“We’re deeply concerned at the use of counter-terrorism powers to target protest groups...they certainly shouldn’t be used to ban them.”

They both urged the Home Secretary to rethink before bringing this to Parliament. Yesterday, several United Nations special rapporteurs, including those for protecting human rights while countering terrorism and for promoting freedom of expression, said they had contacted the UK Government to say that

“acts of protest that damage property, but are not intended to kill or injure people, should not be treated as terrorism”.

Likewise, Lord Charlie Falconer, the former Justice Minister, stated that the “sort of demonstration” seen at a military base by Palestine Action would not justify proscription as a terrorist organisation.

Today, we are not voting on whether people agree with Palestine Action’s tactics; we are not voting on whether people think its aim is right or wrong. We are voting on whether the actions it has taken against property, not against people, should lead to its being treated as a terrorist organisation, when what it has done can be prosecuted as criminal damage. There is a long history of protest activity including acts of trespass, criminal damage, sabotage and more. Indeed, the Home Secretary’s recent statement repeatedly refers to criminal damage and the live court cases, showing that there is already legal provision to deal with Palestine Action.

There are a variety of potential consequences if the proscription of Palestine Action is passed. Supporting or joining Palestine Action could carry up to 14 years in prison. That risks criminalising thousands of volunteers and supporters. Thousands have supported or volunteered with Palestine Action, including nurses, students, retirees and professionals. Many have never engaged in direct action, but risk being criminalised. Today, I met representatives of Amnesty International who offered a number of frightening examples of how our constituents could be placed at risk of prosecution under section 12 of the Terrorism Act and could face a maximum sentence of 14 years if Palestine Action are proscribed.

According to Amnesty International, a person who tweets, “I oppose the war crimes in Gaza and I think that Palestine Action has a point,” could easily fall foul of this provision, as could a person who says to another, “I do not support all the methods used by Palestine Action, but I think protest is important and I respect the personal sacrifices members of Palestine Action are willing to make, risking arrest to challenge war crimes,” or an individual with a placard that reads, “Palestine Action is peaceful—it should be de-proscribed.” This legislation could affect constituents who have never been a member of Palestine Action and who have never and would never commit direct action. Speeches or comments they make in community meetings could be trawled, and they could end up facing legal proceedings resulting in a prison sentence of up to 14 years. That concerns us all.

People out there view terrorism as meaning heinous acts such as shooting people, blowing people up, assassinating people and other acts of violence. I urge colleagues to consider the consequences for their constituents of proscribing Palestine Action alongside these other groups.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

16:35

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for taking the time to discuss this issue with me.

As has been mentioned, there are three organisations listed today, and the order before us is unamendable. Taking each of the three organisations in turn, the Russian Imperial Movement is an ultranationalist and white supremacist militant organisation operating from inside Russia. The group has been proscribed by both the United States and Canada, and even the Russian Government have blacklisted many of the group’s publications and activities. The rationale and justification for proscription is clear, and we are content to support it.

The Maniacs Murder Cult is similarly destructive, driven by a belief that society must be violently destabilised so that a new neo-Nazi or white supremacist order can rise from its ashes. It promotes random acts of violence including murder, assaults and bombings as a deliberate tactic to instil fear and chaos. The rationale and justification for proscription is clear, and we are content to support it.

The questions for many Members today relate to Palestine Action. On 20 June, as has been widely reported in the press, two members of Palestine Action gained unauthorised access to RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire, the UK’s largest airbase, circumventing perimeter security under cover of darkness. Once inside, they targeted two aircraft. Incidents involving members of Palestine Action include attacks at sites operated by Elbit Systems in Bristol in 2024 and again this year, as well as at a Thales UK facility in Glasgow in 2022. I note the Minister’s comments about cases currently going through the courts.

No matter how strongly any of us feels about the appalling humanitarian crisis in Gaza—and many of us across this House and across the country feel very strongly indeed—that does not justify attacks on military bases in Britain. Those responsible must face the full force of the law; there is no doubt about that. However, those laws already exist, and that is not what is in front of MPs today. The question we face is not whether or not these people have committed crimes, but whether someone who merely expresses support for them should face up to 14 years in jail. The bar for which groups should be proscribed as terrorist organisations is rightly set very high. It is crucial that the reasons for these decisions are transparent to maintain the public’s trust in our counter-terrorism framework.

I have listened carefully both to experts who have raised concerns, including those from the UN who were mentioned by the Mother of the House, and to what the Minister has said. I have also seen the Home Secretary’s words about her reasons for making this decision based on damage to property, notwithstanding the Minister’s comments on the use of violence. Proscribing an organisation solely on the grounds of serious damage to property would, I believe, be unprecedented. To date—I would welcome the Minister correcting me if I have got this wrong—no organisation has been proscribed in the UK exclusively for property damage, as is the case here, according to the Home Secretary’s words on the Government website.

While there may be compelling legal arguments that the actions of Palestine Action have met the legal definition of terrorism in terms of serious criminal damage, the decision to proscribe is ultimately made at the Home Secretary’s discretion. There are still questions as to whether that discretion is proportionate in this case, given the level of threat posed to the general public. I would welcome more details from the Minister on why he believes this is a proportionate response, as I remain to be convinced.

Currently the maximum custodial term for certain offences relating to membership of, or expressing support for, a proscribed terrorist organisation is 14 years. Yet in instances such as this, where actions, though criminal and damaging, may not pose the same imminent threat to life, a blanket application of such severe penalties risks being disproportionate. The Home Secretary rightly has substantial powers to take action to keep our country safe, but it is also right and entirely proper that we scrutinise the use of these powers and press the Government to ensure that any use of them is wholly proportionate.

16:40

[Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)]

Twenty-one years ago, a human rights barrister stood in court and defended an activist who broke into RAF Fairford trying to disable a bomber to prevent war crimes in Iraq. That became a landmark case in lawful, non-violent direct action against an illegal war. That barrister is now our Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer KC. He argued that it was not terrorism but conscience.

Fast-forward to 20 June 2025: two Palestine Action activists entered RAF Brize Norton and sprayed red paint—red paint, not fire—on aircraft linked to surveillance flights over Gaza. Instead of prosecuting them for criminal damage, which is what normally is done, the Home Secretary is using the Terrorism Act 2000 to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist group. This is an unprecedented and dangerous overreach of the state. Never before in Britain has it been a crime to simply support a group.

This order lumps a non-violent network of students, nurses, teachers, firefighters and peace campaigners—ordinary people, my constituents and yours—with neo-Nazi militias and mass-casualty cults. Palestine Action’s real crime is, we have to be clear, shutting down Elbit Systems sites that arm the Israeli military; its true offence is being audacious enough to expose the blood-soaked ties between this Government and the genocidal Israeli apartheid state and its war machine.

Let us be clear: to equate a spray can of paint with a suicide bomb is not just absurd; it is grotesque. It is a deliberate distortion of the law to chill dissent, criminalise solidarity and suppress the truth. Amnesty international, Liberty, over 266 senior lawyers and UN special rapporteurs have all opposed these draconian measures. Even at this late stage, the order should be withdrawn.

Under this order, anyone expressing moral support for a proscribed group could face 14 years in prison. That includes wearing a badge, wearing a T-shirt, sharing a post or calling for de-proscription. And journalists have no exemption either: there is no legal protection for reporting favourably, even factually, about Palestine Action. By this weekend, millions of people, including many of our constituents, could be placed under these sweeping restrictions.

Let us not forget what is happening in Gaza, where the real crimes are being ignored: hospitals bombed, children starved, and tens of thousands of people killed. Palestinian children now suffer more amputations per capita than children anywhere else on earth. Israel is on trial for genocide at the International Court of Justice and the Israeli Prime Minister faces an International Criminal Court arrest warrant, yet the Government’s response is to criminalise solidarity and to continue exporting lethal F-35 jets that are decimating Gaza.

We also have to understand the history of this country and what built our democracy: the tradition of civil disobedience that includes the suffragettes, without whom I would not have the vote, let alone the privilege of being here as an MP.

Even those who oppose Palestine Action’s tactics must recognise the vast gulf between criminal damage and terrorism. If this order passes, what and who is next—climate protesters, striking workers, feminists in the street? Already we have seen a wider crackdown on our civil liberties—musicians censored, journalists arrested, and demonstrators, including MPs sitting here, harassed—and now this Government want to use anti-terror laws to make peaceful protest itself a crime. If our democratic institutions functioned as they should, none of this would be necessary.

To conclude, if this proscription passes, as it will, we have to understand that no campaign will be safe tomorrow. We have to recognise that this will go down as a dark day in our country’s history and one that will be remembered: people will ask, “Which side were you on?” and I stand with the millions of people who oppose genocide, because I am one of them. I oppose the blood-soaked hands of this Government trying to silence us. So I say this loudly and proudly on Wednesday 2 July 2025: we are—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order.

[Zarah Sultana]

We are all Palestine—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I call Sir Iain Duncan Smith.

16:44

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I do have concerns about the last of the three organisations covered by the order, in relation to the application of the criminal law. There might be another way of doing it, but I support the Government’s position.

However, this debate has cast into light the fact that we have taken no action to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Given all the elements that we are discussing today, this question sits like the elephant in the room: why are we not proscribing the IRGC? Why have we resisted doing that? That would have a huge impact on terrorism, or aspects of terrorism.

Let us look at it carefully. The IRGC deliberately exports the Islamic revolution. It uses proxies and has been sponsoring terrorism—as has been demonstrated without dispute all over the world. It supports Hamas and Hezbollah and has supplied them with huge amounts of weapons. On whichever side of the arguments one sits, the fact is that this terrible killing would not have happened had that not been the case. The IRGC was heavily involved in that. It is sanctioned but not proscribed. Sanctioning does not give us enough powers to deal with its proxies and those who work for it.

When in opposition, the Government campaigned to proscribe the IRGC. I remember quite happily working with various Members who were then on the Opposition Front Bench to do that. The Foreign Office endlessly says that we would lose all possibility of forming diplomatic relations or getting through to Iran, but how is that going? How has that gone over the past year? Not at all well. One cannot reason with these characters.

A huge number of global attacks are rooted in IRGC money and training. It has high levels of activity in the UK, such as propaganda to try to build arrangements here, sometimes in plain view—there are even links on Facebook. It could be trapped, but it does it openly because nothing can be done to it at all. Of course, the IRGC supports Hezbollah, which is also proscribed. If we keep following this chain around and around, we come back to the IRGC.

That should be the subject of the debate today. That should be the decision. That should be considered on the Floor of the House. The IRGC should be proscribed, because it is at the root of all terrorism that exists here and in the middle east. If we do not do that, it prompts the question of what we are doing here with these other three organisations.

16:46

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

Let me first associate myself with the very good comments of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart).

I agree with the proscription of the two far-right fascist organisations—I think they should be proscribed—but can we as a House accept that there are those of us present who have a different take on today’s proscription of Palestine Action? We do not have to agree with the behaviour or actions of Palestine Action to make the case today that this proscription is wrong. I ask hon. Members to acknowledge that the many of us here today who take a different view on this issue are as much a part of this democracy as those who agree with the proscription. It is just that our take on the delicacy of our democracy, on what this proscription does and on how it undermines our democracy happens to differ from that of other people.

There are Opposition Members who have repeatedly said that they understand and empathise with constituents who have smashed and vandalised ultra low emission zone cameras and low emission zone cameras. Direct action is not just of the left; everyone in our democracy can partake in it. This is a judgment call about how we best protect our democracy and an acknowledgment that not all threats are external or violent. Some threats are based on the decisions that we take in this place. Sometimes, we might take decisions that fundamentally undermine our own democracy.

I have no doubt that some of us will be called terrorist sympathisers by some who disagree with our position, but that would be wrong. Look around the world and watch as democracy and the rule of law are systematically smashed. Corporations and the wealthy have increasing power and wealth to influence our democracy. Look over the Atlantic at the United States. Our democracies are delicate; our democracies are precious. The decisions we take in this place determine whether those democracies will survive into the future.

I look around the world and around this country—I look at the authoritarian right party that is 10 points ahead in the polls—and I worry about the future of our democracy. This Government—our Government—have to make decisions that take account of the possibility that we might not be in government one day. It may be the authoritarian right who are in government, and they will take this further, faster and deeper than we ever have, so we should be putting in fireguards now, protecting our democracy, and this measure does not do that.

In conclusion, I understand what terrorism is. I was in London on 7 July 2005 and I watched my community—this city—attacked by real terrorists. At that point, rightly or wrongly, I decided that I was going to Afghanistan to fight the terrorists. I went because I love this country and I love our democracy and I want to see it protected. Today’s proscription order against Palestine Action undermines that, and I wish that my Government were not doing this.

16:50

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

As we have heard, the issues around the proscription of Palestine Action has thrown up a number of legitimate concerns. There is no doubt that it will have an impact on our right to protest and on the civil liberties that we have enjoyed for decades. Although it is absolutely right to condemn and prosecute criminal activity, especially those that threaten our national security, surely this must be done within the framework of existing legislation, as it always has been.

This order looks nothing other than a direct response to Palestine Action being able to infiltrate an RAF base and cause damage to a defence aircraft. The decision to proscribe an organisation is ultimately a matter for the Government, and it is up to the Home Secretary to decide who goes on that list. It is based on intelligence that the Government hold. I do not think that the Minister has convinced many of us today that this has met the threshold for proscription, and we need to hear more about their concerns about this particular group.

Before reaching for that power, the Government must take into account whether it is proportionate, justified and in the national interest to proscribe such an organisation. Terrorism legislation, as we know, hands extremely broad powers to the state and, as such, it must always be treated with the highest degree of caution and restraint.

We live in a society where groups and organisations have the democratic right to campaign and express their views on particular issues in a democratic, respectful and lawful manner. It is important that the right to lawful protest is not affected by the Home Secretary’s decision today, and it is extremely concerning that this decision could lead to these powers being extended to other campaigning organisations.

Palestine Action has inexplicably been linked to groups such as the Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement—groups unknown to the House until this measure was on the Order Paper today, but they are groups that, from a cursory glance at their activities, should of course be proscribed.

For Palestine Action to be included alongside those groups is, at best, a cynical and calculated move by the Government to ensure that this order gets through today. People all over the UK, including many of my constituents, rightly feel very strongly about the appalling crimes that are being committed against innocent civilians in Gaza on a daily basis. Many of those people have been taking part in weekly protests to make their voices heard, and to show solidarity with the Palestinian people. These people are now concerned that they might be caught up in this proscription.

I am also concerned that many young people who are sharing social media posts from Palestine Action could now be considered to have glorified what will soon be a proscribed group. We need clarity on what actions would result in people being charged under this terrorism legislation. For example, could a person wearing a Palestine Action badge handed out at a demonstration or a rally be charged with terrorism? Organisations such as Amnesty International and even the United Nations have expressed their concern about the UK’s broad definition of terrorism in this regard.

This week, an Israeli strike on a Gaza seafront café killed at least 20 Palestinians. This is what we should be discussing today and every day until a permanent ceasefire is reached and all the hostages are released. The Government must act in the national interest and keep us safe from all the challenges presented to them, but we need clear reassurance about the wider impact of what is proposed.

16:54

[Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s decisive action on Palestine Action, the Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement. Twenty months on from the horrific terror attacks of 7 October, the suffering of innocent people in Gaza, in Israel and beyond has rightly been the subject of much international campaigning. Money has been raised to support charities getting aid into Gaza, the hostages and missing families forum has worked tirelessly to keep the plight of the 50 remaining hostages on the world’s agenda, and hundreds of thousands of people have contacted their MPs, signed petitions and made their voices heard. That is all genuine activism, which is, importantly, within the bounds of the law.

Palestine Action is different. Over five years, it has conducted a campaign of violence, intimidation and criminal damage. In one attack on a business in Bristol, two police officers were attacked with a sledgehammer. The officers found not only sledgehammers but whips, axes and other home-made weapons. Palestine Action has attacked a business in my constituency, intimidating the workers there.

Last month, at RAF Brize Norton, military planes were vandalised and £30 million of damage was done. Such attacks undermine our national security and our armed forces. They can never be justified. I applaud the Home Secretary for responding in the strongest possible terms.

Palestine Action also has a track record of attacks against the country’s Jewish community. In May, a building housing Jewish-owned businesses in north Manchester was vandalised with red paint and graffiti reading “Happy Nakba Day”. Later that month, a Jewish-owned business in Stamford Hill was attacked by the organisation, with windows broken, red paint graffiti, and damage done to the building’s mezuzah. In the latter case, Palestine Action’s claims that the business was linked to Israeli defence companies proved baseless. This campaign of antisemitic harassment reveals the logical conclusion of its extremism. The important difference between it and all the other groups mentioned in the House is that it targets a specific ethnic and religious minority in our country.

This extremism does not help a single Palestinian. Smashing windows will not free Palestine, but it undermines the hard work of so many people who support the Palestinian cause and are working towards a peaceful future, and it leads to an environment where British Jews feel unsafe and harassed. That should never be tolerated.

Legitimate protest is a fundamental democratic freedom, but Palestinian Action abandoned legitimate action a long time ago. I welcome the Government’s swift action in ensuring that that organisation can no longer pose a threat to our security, to our businesses and to the Jewish community.

16:57

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

As the debate opened, I intervened on the Minister, and I am grateful to him for giving way. I just need an explanation—I hope that we will get one—as to why groups are always put together in these orders and not dealt with separately. There are clearly different orders of concern here. I want to speak solely about Palestine Action.

We live in a democratic society, and we have to understand where our rights have come from. The hon. Member for High Peak (Jon Pearce) represents the place where in 1932 the mass trespass took place, led by Benny Rothman—a Jewish activist in the Communist party at that time—who was demanding rights of access to the countryside. He was roundly condemned by all the mass media and the Government of the day, he was put on trial and he was put in prison. He was eventually released from prison after mass protests in his support. Without Benny Rothman and those others, that access to the countryside simply would not have happened at that time.

We can look at all the other people who over decades of our history have stood up for free speech and democracy. We can go back to the Chartists, to the suffragettes and to those who campaigned to end apartheid in South Africa. Interestingly, during all the apartheid years, while the British Government did condemn the African National Congress and did indeed believe for a while that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist, they never banned the ANC in Britain, because they were advised that it was important that there should be a place where people could express that voice of hope for the end of apartheid.

The women who went to Greenham Common to protest about the deployment of nuclear weapons there were never labelled as terrorists either. Yes, they were charged with criminal trespass, as many others have been. Indeed, those who undertake direct action are well aware of the risks they take. However, it crosses an enormous threshold to suddenly make such an announcement about Palestine Action, which speaks out against the horrors of what is happening in Gaza, where hundreds are mown down every day by the Israel Defence Forces simply for queuing for food when they are desperately hungry and their children are starving. Surely we should be looking at the issue that Palestine Action is concerned about, as well as the supply of weapons from this country to Israel, which has made all that possible.

If the order goes through today, it will have a chilling effect on protest. I quote a letter sent to the Home Secretary on 28 June:

“Direct action is a longstanding and respected part of British political history. From the suffragettes chaining themselves to railings, to striking miners, to anti-apartheid campaigners occupying institutions and disrupting trade, civil disobedience and direct action have always been necessary forces for progress and justice.”

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I will not.

That letter comes from Bibi Khan, the chair of North London Council of Mosques, and Muhammad Uddin from Newham Muslim Forum, on behalf of the London councils of mosques that are concerned about the chilling effect that this piece of legislation, if agreed today, will have on the rights to protest as a whole.

My last point—I hope the Minister can reply to this if he gets the chance—is that legal action is being taken. There will be a hearing in the High Court this Friday about judicial review of this case. Can it be made clear that the order will not be put into force until all legal avenues have been exhausted and that there will not be a temporary imposition, later to be withdrawn if there is successful legal action? We need to know that all democratic avenues have been fully explored in this process.

17:01

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

Today’s push to proscribe Palestine Action, a non-violent direct action group, as a terrorist organisation is a disastrous turning point of historic proportions. It risks undermining existing prosecution cases against activities by Palestine Action activists and is legally dubious. Human and civil rights organisations, lawyers and UN experts have all spoken out against the misuse of terrorism laws, calling the move unjustified and warning of a chilling effect on protest and advocacy generally, especially in relation to the defence of human rights and international law in Palestine.

We have already seen the chilling effect on protest. Palestine Solidarity Campaign has been prevented from protesting outside Parliament this evening, with police placing restrictions on the demo and pushing it further down Whitehall. For hundreds of years, protests outside Parliament have gone ahead. Limiting dissent in this way should concern us all, and we have seen that in the last couple of weeks in relation to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, abortion and the empty welfare cuts.

The question that Members of this House must ask ourselves today is whether non-violent political groups should ever be designated as a terror threat. If Palestine Action is proscribed this week—

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Will she give way?

[Kim Johnson]

No, I will not.

By the weekend, anyone with a branded t-shirt or bag could face a terrorism charge. Amnesty International has flagged that if Palestine Action is proscribed this week, even meeting their lawyers to discuss intervening in judicial review proceedings could see its members fall foul of counter-terror legislation. Those are all examples of potential grounds for prosecution under counter-terrorism laws if Palestine Action is proscribed, which could come to constituents who are not members of the organisation and have never engaged in direct action. The scope of what we are talking about is insanely broad. Will the Government really demand that we vote to criminalise our constituents in that way?

Proscribing Palestine Action today would set a dangerous precedent for future Government misuse of counter-terror laws. It would be the first group proscribed mainly for serious damage to property and the first proscribed direct action group. Proscription is neither necessary nor proportionate. We already have sufficient criminal legislation that has always dealt with this when necessary and the Home Secretary has provided no impact assessment as

“no, or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary or public sectors is foreseen.”

However, we have received no reassurances about how the proportionality test has been applied or whether unintended impacts on the wider pro-Palestine movement were considered by the Home Office and the proscription review group. Indeed, we have heard from civil rights groups that there have allegedly been meetings with representatives from the Israeli Government and arms companies such as Elbit, but none with human rights groups.

Whether or not Members of this House debating and voting on this statutory instrument today agree with the methods or aims of Palestine Action, we should all be able to agree that lumping Palestine Action together with the other two obscure groups to ensure that it is proscribed is a disgraceful manipulation of parliamentary procedure. Searching Hansard, I see that neither of the other two groups has been mentioned, as they are so obscure. This manoeuvre is transparent, and it shows that the Government know just how shaky this proscription is. Today they come for Palestine Action. If this measure is passed today, who and what will be next? I look forward to the Minister answering the concerns we have raised, particularly about the three organisations being grouped together.

17:05

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Let me start by putting on record that I know at least two people who have participated in Palestine Action protests, but that is not why I am speaking today. This is about fundamental principles. This is a chilling moment for British democracy. Let us be clear about what is happening: a political protest group is being silenced. Is it not hugely ironic that this is being done today, given that this morning, hundreds of women MPs, including the Home Secretary, celebrated in Westminster Hall the 97th anniversary of equal votes for women—a victory won by the suffragettes, a direct action protest group?

I have three key points. First, it is a clear overreach to conflate direct action with terrorism. Secondly, this will have a chilling effect on the democratic rights to free speech and protest. Thirdly, it is utterly cynical of the Government to wrap up the proscription of Palestine Action with the proscription of two other clearly terrorist groups. The Terrorism Act 2000 makes it clear that strict proportionality and necessity tests must be met before any group is proscribed, but this decision on Palestine Action is not necessary or proportionate.

As Amnesty International and others have made clear, there is ample criminal law that can be used to respond to a direct action protest network such as Palestine Action. It may have engaged in criminal damage; its supporters may break into airbases; it may have been charged with offences such as violent disorder and aggravated burglary; and it may have carried out actions that I absolutely do not condone—indeed, I condemn the attacks on properties in Stamford Hill, which may understandably have stirred up genuine fear, and I find the words spoken by one of its co-founders at a rally in the aftermath of the 7 October Hamas attacks absolutely horrific—but that does not make Palestine Action terrorists. That bar is, and should be, extremely high. It is commonly understood internationally to involve the use or threat of violence against civilians to instil fear, whereas the stated aim of Palestine Action is to prevent war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

It is not just the members and supporters of Palestine Action who are being silenced but, by association, millions of members of the public. This proscription represents a grave risk to the free speech and protest rights of those who are rightly concerned that a genocide is happening in Gaza on this Government’s watch. Millions of people in this country are active, whether online or in their communities, in campaigning to end the UK’s complicity in that genocide. There is a clear risk that proscribing Palestine Action will criminalise people who, for example, share a social media post, and there is potential for imprisonment for up to 14 years. This proscription interferes with the fundamental rights of members of the public to protest against the Government’s policies, and it is clearly disproportionate in the light of the actions of the group.

I am also deeply concerned by the Home Office’s utterly cynical decision to wrap up the proscription of Palestine Action with that of two other groups that undeniably meet the terrorism test. This has clearly been done to make it extremely difficult for MPs to vote against the motion. I want it on record that I and my Green party colleagues absolutely oppose the proscription of Palestine Action, and we will oppose any similar attacks on the civil disobedience that is such a proud part of UK history.

Let us compare the charges against Palestine Action with those against the Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement. Running paramilitary training camps, producing guides on how to fatally attack somebody and white supremacist neo-Nazis organising in support of satanism are clearly terrorist acts, whereas proscribing Palestine Action appears to be a purely political move, unworthy of a democracy supposedly committed to human rights. No wonder there is significant opposition to this move across Parliament, including from the former Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, Lord Falconer. It is a massive distraction from the continuing horrors in Gaza that Palestine Action wants to bring to an end, as do many in the Chamber—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I call Nadia Whittome.

17:09

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

I want to make it clear to Members that the order we are voting on is not about whether we support Palestine Action’s political positions or protest methods. To vote against this motion, Members do not have to agree with the group at all; they can still support holding it criminally liable for its actions. The question is whether it should be proscribed as a terrorist group, placed alongside the likes of al-Qaeda, Islamic State and National Action.

It is fitting that this debate takes place on the 97th anniversary of women winning the vote on equal terms with men, thanks in no small part to the suffragettes. The suffragettes carried out direct action far more extreme than anything those in Palestine Action have done, but today their role in changing history for the better is commemorated. Whatever we think of its actions, Palestine Action is part of a similar tradition, with the target this time being to stop the genocide in Gaza. It is unprecedented for a Government to ban a civil disobedience protest group in the way that they are attempting to today, but what is not unprecedented is protesters breaking into military bases. That has never before resulted in proscription.

Proscribing Palestine Action would be a draconian overreach. It would threaten the fundamental right to peaceful protest. It would set a dangerous precedent that could be used in future to further silence dissent, while diminishing what the Terrorism Act is meant to prevent.

[Mr Dillon]

I am the MP for Newbury, where we have Greenham Common, which is now peaceful but had cruise missiles. Greenham Common peace women broke into the base and attacked jets with hammers, and they were prosecuted under criminal law. They were held to account. Does the hon. Member agree that under this Government, even Greenham peace women could have been considered a terrorist organisation?

[Nadia Whittome]

I agree entirely with the hon. Member.

UN experts urge us not to do this. They state that they are

“concerned at the unjustified labelling of a political protest movement as ‘terrorist’”.

Hundreds of lawyers have written to the Home Secretary, warning that proscribing Palestine Action would conflate protest and terrorism. Amnesty International and Liberty have both expressed deep concerns. A senior civil servant has briefed that there is disquiet among Home Office staff about the decision, and has called it “absurd”.

It is important to remember that this proscription would affect not just members of Palestine Action, but anyone who supports them. Donating to a fundraiser or posting positively about the group on social media would be committing a crime. We risk criminalising huge numbers of our constituents. I regret our being denied the opportunity to vote separately on the proscription of Palestine Action. The other two bodies are neo-Nazi organisations whose proscription I wholeheartedly support. This grouping together of organisations that so clearly do not belong in the same category demonstrates again why we cannot allow this proscription to go ahead. I have no choice but to vote against the order.

17:12

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I must say that I never thought the day would arise when I as a non-lawyer would be advising a Government of lawyers that they need to be sure of the legal basis for what they are doing. As I said in an intervention on this subject on 23 June,

“it would do the country and the Government no favours if they were to lose in court a challenge to the process of proscription, because whereas the secret sabotage of planes would certainly have been an act of terrorism leading to proscription, the fact is that this was a performative act that these people announced they had done.”—[Official Report, 23 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 893.]

My question for the Government is this: will they at least adopt a belt-and-braces policy when it comes to the prosecution of the people who did that terribly irresponsible and wrong-headed act of sabotaging those planes? Will they also prosecute them on the basis that they have done criminal damage, and have attacked the forces of the Crown and thereby done something that borders on sedition? Otherwise, by using the wrong aspects of the law to pursue people who did some very bad things indeed, I fear the Government will end up scoring an own goal, and these people will walk free with a court triumph under their belt.

Although it is justified by the unacceptable behaviour of the perpetrators, I am not convinced that the policy that the Government have adopted will stand up in court, when there are plenty of other legal methods that could be used to deal with this form of extremism. It is extremism, but it does not, in my opinion, pass the threshold to be classified as terrorism, in the legal sense. If I had been able to accept the Minister’s offer to have a word with me on Privy Council terms before the debate—I thank him for that offer, and I am sorry that I was not able to take it up—he may have been able to tell me things about Palestine Action that would have convinced me that it crossed that threshold.

However, if the Minister is not able to say those things in public—there may be very good reasons why he is not—then I suspect he will not be able to tell them to the courts, either. Nobody can accuse me of being soft on anti-militarist extremist groups, but I say to the Government, with the best will in the world, that they must adopt a legal belt-and-braces policy when it comes to prosecuting this group, and not rely on this proscription alone, because I fear that I see trouble ahead from m’learned friends.

17:16

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I place on record my full support for the proscription of Maniacs Murder Cult and Russian Imperial Movement. They are vile, murderous and fascist cults, and their place on the proscribed list is justified and necessary. However, it is precisely because we must take terrorism seriously that we must draw clear lines. To put Palestine Action, a direct action protest group, in the same category as those murderous, extremist organisations erodes the credibility of our legal framework and risks undermining civil rights.

Proscription must be used judiciously. Conflating protest with terror is a dangerous step that undermines the freedoms that our counter-terrorism laws are meant to protect. There is adequate provision in our criminal law to deal with any criminal activity, but we are being asked to proscribe Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act. To treat civil dissent, whether or not we agree with it, as extremism is a concerning shift, and we risk crossing a line. Hundreds of lawyers, including King’s counsel and human rights advocates, have warned that such a move is not a hallmark of democracy.

We heard earlier today that United Nations special rapporteurs have expressed serious concern about the measure, but we have not heard about the huge implications that the proscription will have for some of our communities, who risk being criminalised simply for showing support for Palestine. Under this proscription, people could face prosecution for something as simple as wearing a badge, sharing a post online or attending a peaceful protest.

The question for the House is: do we really want to become a society where non-violently expressing solidarity, or even speaking out, could be interpreted as terrorism? That will only further fuel fear and repression. Local anti-racist groups could suddenly find themselves under suspicion. Whole communities could be classed as suspects, not for what they do but what they stand for. There are numerous examples of that, which I do not have time to set out today. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) has already eloquently set out a number of examples that, frankly, should send shivers down the spine of all hon. Members. This is not the way forward. Non-violent protest, which our democracy is meant to protect, now risks being labelled as terror.

The legal basis for this proscription is unsound. The democratic consequences are severe, and the moral cost is frankly unacceptable. Let me be clear: it will disproportionately target campaigners and minority communities and set a precedent that reaches far beyond this one group. Today it is Palestine Action, and tomorrow it could be climate activists. We are standing on a slippery slope. Proscribing a protest group is not strength.

I urge this House to defend our hard-won rights and civil liberties. Conflating protest with terrorism is not democracy. I therefore put on record that I will not support any proscription of Palestine Action.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I can squeeze in one more speaker if they are brief.

17:19

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

I came to this country as a child; it nurtured, educated and embraced me. I love this country for so many reasons, but for two reasons more than anything else, I suspect. The first is for its sense of fairness, and the second is for the freedom to express how we feel democratically. That is why I speak specifically about Palestine Action when I say that if we proscribe this organisation under the Terrorism Act, we will for the first time in this nation’s history outlaw a domestic protest group as a terrorist organisation.

Britain has a proud and often hard-fought tradition of civil resistance. We remember with reverence the suffragettes, who were branded as criminals for smashing windows but are now celebrated as heroes of justice. We remember the civil rights movement, in which protesters occupied streets and broke unjust laws to dismantle segregation. We remember the global campaign against apartheid—which included Ministers in this House—where people of conscience defied authorities, trespassed and disrupted in the name of ending a brutal system. The very freedoms we hold dear today—votes for women, racial equality and the end of apartheid—were born not from men and women in suits in this establishment, but from people out there. It is that tradition that we are about to disrupt today.

This decision, which has been rushed through Parliament in a matter of days and bundled with unrelated, foreign neo-Nazi groups and debated for mere minutes, is a reckless abuse of process. It denies Parliament the gravity of deliberation that this issue so badly demands. The proscription has already been condemned by a vast range of people, from Sally Rooney to Lord Falconer, and that will continue.

Even worse, this statutory instrument risks criminalising anyone who supports, sympathises with or even publicly praises the aims of Palestine Action. It opens the door to the prosecution of journalists, filmmakers, campaigners and politicians for doing nothing more than expressing solidarity. This is Orwellian dystopia on steroids. Let us ask ourselves honestly: if we set this precedent, who will be next? History will judge harshly those who choose silence in moments of moral testing.

I urge my colleagues not to allow this dangerous step to go unchallenged. Do not allow a Home Secretary, in a moment of political expediency, permanently to expand the reach of anti-terror laws into the heart of a domestic protest. Do not let this House be the one that shrank the boundaries of freedom of expression. We owe it to those who fought so hard for our freedoms, dared to dissent and refused to be silent—let us summon their courage now. I urge colleagues to vote against this proscription, and to protect our democratic tradition and our right to protest.

17:19

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to all those who have contributed to this debate. The proscription of these three organisations affirms the UK’s zero-tolerance approach to terrorism. To be clear, these proscriptions will not affect anyone’s legitimate and lawful right to protest, whether it is about Palestine, Gaza or anything else.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Jarvis]

The Government have to take action when Palestine Action has orchestrated a nationwide campaign of property damage, featuring attacks that have resulted in serious damage to property and crossed the legal threshold—

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Jarvis]

I will not give way.

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I think it is clear that at this point the Minister does not wish to give way. He has until 5.27 pm, so let us see how this progresses.

[Dan Jarvis]

These attacks have resulted in serious damage to property and crossed the legal threshold from direct criminal action into terrorism. Members have used violence against people responding at the scenes of attacks, and have been charged with a series of serious offences, including violent disorder, grievous bodily harm with intent and aggravated burglary, which is an offence involving a weapon. This order would degrade their harmful activity. It will also reduce the threat—particularly to vulnerable individuals—from MMC’s violent content, and it will reinforce our support for Ukraine and our commitment to countering extreme right-wing terrorism in Europe.

[John McDonnell]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Mr McDonnell—[Interruption.] I am on my feet. This is a very tight debate that has to conclude at 5.27 pm. The Minister has time; he may wish to take your intervention shortly. Is your point of order really relevant right now?

[John McDonnell]

It is, Madam Deputy Speaker—let me explain. I want to know whether, if this order goes through and I go out to the demonstration that is mobilising at the moment to say that I am opposed to this, I will be prosecuted.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That was not a point of order. The Minister may wish to respond—he has a few minutes in which to do so—but that was not a point of order.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am happy to respond directly to the right hon. Gentleman’s point of order. The process of proscription requires this House to agree such action. Should the House do so later this evening, it would then go to the other place, and it would be for the other place to agree the action or not. It would then be for the Home Secretary or myself to sign an order, and that order would then become law at midnight on the night it had been signed.

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am not going to give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[John McDonnell]

What if I oppose it tomorrow? What if I suggest it is wrong?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Minister, continue.

[Dan Jarvis]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman listened to what I said—I just explained to him the process that is in place.

I am grateful to all of those who have considered this matter. This order is a necessary and proportionate step to protect the public and defend our values. That is, after all, the first duty of the state, and under this Government, nothing will matter more. With that, I commend this order to the House.

[Carla Denyer]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

This is not a time for a point of order.

Question put.

17:26

Division 252

Ayes: 385

---

Labour: 276
Conservative: 87
Liberal Democrat: 6
Independent: 5
Reform UK: 3
Democratic Unionist Party: 3
Traditional Unionist Voice: 1
Ulster Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 26

---

Labour: 10
Liberal Democrat: 6
Independent: 6
Green Party: 4
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1

Resolved,

That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 30 June, be approved.

[Carla Denyer]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you know, every single person who just voted no on the statutory instrument wanted to vote yes on the proscription of the Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement, but we were prevented from doing so by the cynical way in which the Government lumped together those two clearly terrorist organisations with Palestine Action, which we could not support. Can you please advise me and the other MPs who just voted no if there is any way that, in future, proscription orders for unrelated organisations could be voted on separately, so that each MP can apply their own critical assessment of whether each group has met the tests of proportionality and necessity that are required for a terrorism proscription?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving notice of her point of order. The Chair does not have the power to separate out decisions on the contents of a statutory instrument. In making her point of order, she has put her concerns on the record.

[Zarah Sultana]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the debate on the proscription of Palestine Action, the hon. Member for High Peak (Jon Pearce), whom I have notified of this point of order, spoke without declaring that he is chair of Labour Friends of Israel and has accepted hospitality and overseas trips funded by private Israel lobby organisations. The House was discussing a non-violent direct action group that directly challenges the Israeli state, which is on trial for genocide against the Palestinian people. Can you advise me on what mechanisms are available to make the British public truly aware of what interests are being represented on the Floor of the House?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order, and for having given advance notice of it. The procedure for raising a complaint of this sort is by writing to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and it is not a matter for the Chair.