Palestine Action: Proscription and Protests

Debate between Dan Jarvis and Liz Saville Roberts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

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

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

Irish Republican Alleged Incitement

Debate between Dan Jarvis and Liz Saville Roberts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful for and completely understand the points the hon. Member made, which he made in a fair, reasonable way. I give him that commitment to come back and update the House. I give him my personal assurance of the importance that I attach to these matters. I chair the defending democracy taskforce. I have personally invested a huge amount of time and effort working closely with officials not just in the Home Office but right across government. It is an important mechanism that brings together the collective resource of the UK Government, and it is on me to ensure that those resources are properly marshalled in the right place at the right time, so that we can be ambitious about ensuring that people are not subject to completely unacceptable harassment and intimidation. I give him the assurance that I will do everything I possibly can, working with colleagues across Government, and I would be happy to speak to him and to come back and update the House accordingly.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

An apology to the families of David Amess and Jo Cox was the only slim chance for redemption. The use of inciting language is to be condemned when it becomes apparent, just as violence against elected representatives is always to be condemned. Politics is about being alert to the right to use words powerfully and the risks and responsibilities of doing so. Does the Minister agree, therefore, that it is right and necessary to condemn incendiary language and to ensure freedom of speech right across the political spectrum?