Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

Modern Slavery Act 2015: 10th Anniversary

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I warmly welcome this debate. I thank the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) for securing it and opening it, and for her work on this topic. As we have heard from Members from all parts of the House, while there is something to celebrate in the fact that this legislation is here, there is still much more work to be done to achieve the goal of eliminating slavery entirely. I will take this opportunity to raise two issues with the Minister—issues on which there is work to be done that could strengthen our action on modern slavery and our policies.

The first issue relates to checks and balances, or review processes. In any administrative decision-making process, it is really important that there are opportunities for decisions to be reviewed by people with expertise, yet in December 2022, the then Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), disbanded the multi-agency assurance panels, which played a crucial role. They brought together people with expertise in policy and in tackling modern slavery to review cases in which applicants had been rejected, in order to ensure that the decisions in those cases were sound.

Members from across the House may have received the same briefing as me from a coalition of dozens of organisations working on modern slavery. I was shocked and surprised to read in that briefing that 70% of reconsidered negative decisions were overturned, so there is clearly an issue with the decision-making process, and clearly a vital role for review mechanisms such as the multi-agency assurance panels in checking that decisions are sound. I would very much welcome the Minister responding to this point in her summing up, and perhaps saying whether the Government will consider reinstating those important panels.

My second point is about the vulnerability of people on temporary work visas to labour exploitation. Preventing labour exploitation in the first place is key. This issue relates particularly to people on overseas domestic worker visas, but it also applies, as the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) said, to those in the care sector, which is growing, and to agricultural seasonal workers. The core of this problem is that when the temporary work visa is attached to the employer, there is a strong disincentive for the employee to speak out and report labour exploitation, because they will suffer punishment for doing so. That means that the problem remains hidden, and it makes it much more difficult for people to come forward.

Sensible reforms that could tackle the problem have been proposed by those working in the sector. For instance, if those work visas were renewable so long as the employment continued, the individual would have a degree of security. However, that would have to go alongside a provision under which, if the employer was subject to an enforcement mechanism for exploitation, the employee was able to remain here and could seek alternative employment and an alternative sponsor for their visa. I understand that that is being done in Australia, where there is now a mechanism for bridging visas to be provided. That ensures a measure of justice in the system, and that those who are subject to exploitation can escape it and find new employment with a non-exploitative employer.

Those are the two issues that I wanted to bring to the Minister’s attention. I look forward to hearing her response.