← Back to House of Commons Debates
Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism 2025-07-02
02 July 2025
Lead MP
The Minister for Security
Debate Type
Ministerial Statement
Tags
Crime & Law EnforcementDefenceEconomyForeign Affairs
Other Contributors: 27
At a Glance
The Minister for Security raised concerns about prevention and suppression of terrorism 2025-07-02 in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Government Statement
Today, I am moving to approve the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025, which will see three distinct groups proscribed: Maniacs Murder Cult, Palestine Action and the Russian Imperial Movement. Proscription is one of the most powerful counter-terrorism tools available to Government, and any decision to proscribe an organisation must be based on rigorous consideration and legal thresholds. The Home Secretary reasonably believes that these organisations are concerned in terrorism and have committed or participated in acts of terror. The Maniacs Murder Cult (MMC) operates online and across borders, encouraging individuals to engage in violent attacks globally, including hate crimes and mass violence against ethnic minority groups, homeless people, and Jewish schoolchildren. Palestine Action is a five-year-old group that should not be conflated with legitimate campaigns for Palestinian rights and statehood. The Government will not stand by and allow the terrorist threat posed by these organisations to persist. Proscribing them sends a clear signal to social media companies to remove their material from platforms, deterring individuals from engaging with violent content.
Jeremy Corbyn
Ind
Islington North
Question
Why has the Minister linked these three organisations together? He clearly made a judgment on each of the three independently, and it would be fair to take individual votes on the three.
Minister reply
I will explain precisely why we have proceeded in this way. There is clear precedent for doing this as I recall that he voted against proscribing a number of organisations previously including al-Qaeda in 2001.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Question
Is there a list of those who may be members of Palestine Action? Will they be subject to the ruling and proscription as well?
Minister reply
We understand what it means to have security, but if he is patient and allows me to make progress, I will explain and respond to his point.
St Ives
Question
When did the actions of MMC first come to the attention of the Government? Why have they left it so long to bring forward this order?
Minister reply
There is no political convenience in what we are seeking to do today. We are seeking to ensure the security of our country.
Zarah Sultana
Ind
Coventry South
Question
Rather than rushing this order through Parliament, should it not be delayed until the judicial process has concluded?
Minister reply
We are certainly not seeking to rush this through Parliament; these are matters that the Home Secretary and I have considered for some time.
Chi Onwurah
Lab
Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West
Question
Will criminal damage, no matter how creatively or indeed scandalously undertaken, always be dealt with under criminal law, and not as a terrorist act?
Minister reply
In my remarks, I will seek to evidence why we have chosen to take this course of action on this group. Essential rights do not give this group carte blanche to seriously damage property or subject members of the public to fear and violence.
Diane Abbott
Lab
Hackney North and Stoke Newington
Question
Acts of protest that damage property but are not intended to kill or injure people should not be treated as terrorism.
Minister reply
I am grateful for her point, however, if the actions had been conducted by an organisation with different ideological motives, she and some colleagues would strongly recommend that the Government proscribed them.
Adnan Hussain
Ind
Blackburn
Question
This heavy-handed approach threatens basic freedoms and sets a dangerous precedent for all political dissent in the UK. Does the Minister acknowledge that?
Minister reply
I do not acknowledge that, and I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the decision we have taken.
Clive Lewis
Lab
Norwich South
Question
Everything you have spoken about could be dealt with under criminal law. 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.
Minister reply
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.
Question
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.
Minister reply
I will make a bit of progress, because I hope to answer some of the points that the right hon. Gentleman.
Minister reply
No, I will make some progress now.
Ayoub Khan
Ind
Birmingham Perry Barr
Minister reply
I will not give way, because I need to get these important points on the record.
Shockat Adam
Ind
Leicester South
Question
Does the shadow Minister agree with me that, if the only acceptable form of protest is polite protest, that is not protest, but permission?
Minister reply
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.
Question
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.
Minister reply
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.
Richard Burgon
Lab
Leeds East
Question
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.
Minister reply
We must be clear-eyed about the broader threat landscape we face. Terrorism remains one of the most serious threats to our national security... (full minister's response)
Lisa Smart
LD
Hazel Grove
Question
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.
Minister reply
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.
Chingford and Woodford Green
Question
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.
Clive Lewis
Lab
Norwich South
Question
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?... 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.
Jon Pearce
Lab
High Peak
Question
Pearce welcomed the Home Secretary’s decision, noting Palestine Action's history of violence against businesses in his constituency and its antisemitic attacks. He praised the swift action to ensure security for businesses and the Jewish community.
Jeremy Corbyn
Ind
Islington North
Question
Corbyn sought an explanation for why these groups are proscribed together, citing historical examples of protests that led to positive change. He also raised concerns about the chilling effect on protest rights and requested assurance that legal action would be exhausted before implementation.
Kim Johnson
Lab
Liverpool Riverside
Question
Johnson described the proscription of Palestine Action as a 'disastrous turning point' with risks to existing prosecution cases and warnings of a chilling effect on protest rights. She highlighted restrictions placed on protests outside Parliament.
Nadia Whittome
Lab
Nottingham East
Question
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.
Question
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?
Minister reply
I agree entirely with the hon. Member.
Julian Lewis
Con
New Forest East
Question
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?
John McDonnell
Ind
Hayes and Harlington
Question
Will the Minister give way?
Minister reply
I will not give way.
John McDonnell
Ind
Hayes and Harlington
Question
Will the Minister give way?
Minister reply
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.
John McDonnell
Ind
Hayes and Harlington
Question
What if I oppose it tomorrow? What if I suggest it is wrong?
Minister reply
I am not going to give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
Question
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?
Minister reply
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.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.