The Minister acknowledged the need for clarity but noted that the police are operationally independent. He mentioned ongoing work by the Government to ensure elected representatives can do their duty without fear, and highlighted the importance of distinguishing between lawful protest and criminal activity.

The Minister thanked the shadow Home Secretary for his remarks and stated he would support any measures ensuring public safety, including preventative actions by the police.

The Minister acknowledged the difficulty in making operational judgments but emphasised that the police must act against any form of violence or intimidation. He stated that existing laws provide sufficient coverage for such activities and that arrests are made proportionately based on evidence.

The hon. Lady was assured that while the Government considers such matters, no current plans exist for amendment due to ongoing legal processes. The law is applied fairly without discrimination.

The Minister provided assurances that the law is being applied fairly without favour. He emphasised that everyone must adhere to laws equally, regardless of political or social influence.

The Minister assured that the Government is working closely with police forces, ensuring they have necessary resources to manage both protest-related and day-to-day policing responsibilities.

Yes, I would.

The right hon. Gentleman was reminded of the protocol preventing discussion on future proscription activities, but his views were noted by relevant departments.

The Minister assured that the Government is closely working with the Metropolitan Police to ensure adequate resource allocation, balancing protest policing with other duties.

The Minister did not commit to such a review but assured that all matters are considered carefully and independently.

I can give him those assurances. We have engaged with the Committee, which consists of experienced parliamentarians, and will continue to do so.

I completely agree with my hon. Friend's comments. The Government will do everything we can to support the important process of securing peace in the Middle East.

I can give him an absolute assurance: yes, we believe in the importance of the operational independence of the police. The Government do not interfere with how the police carry out their duties.

I completely agree with my hon. Friend's point about political challenge; this is why we are here today to debate the decision. The Government have acted in good faith based on clear advice received. Under the circumstances, proscribing Palestine Action was a necessary duty.

I acknowledge his assessment of the decision as being finely balanced. Under the circumstances, the then Home Secretary took the right approach. As for regional disparities, I ask him to write to me if he has seen particular occurrences that are not in line with operational independence.

The Home Secretary acts on advice and very carefully considers a range of factors including peaceful protest, but it is unacceptable that anybody should seek to assault police officers.

The only distinction I am seeking to make is between those who break the law and those who do not. There is a big difference between protesting in support of a legitimate cause and expressing support for a proscribed organisation, which is a criminal offence.

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.

With great respect, and I do not mean to be flippant, I think it is a rather unfortunate use of “sledgehammer”, given previous events. No, I do not agree with my hon. Friend. I think the actions of the Government have been necessary and proportionate for the reasons I explained earlier. I worry that there are a number of people who seek to express support for an organisation who do not fully understand the activities that that organisation has engaged in in recent times.

Let me first join the hon. Gentleman in thanking the police for the important work that they do. It is absolutely shameful that there were 17 assaults on members of the police doing their job in London this weekend. That is totally unacceptable and rather undermines the credibility of those who say that these are entirely peaceful protests. With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s other point, I hope he will understand that these are matters for the Crown Prosecution Service, which is independent of Government, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment on them, but I share the concerns that he has expressed.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his thoughtful and sensible question. There is a formal legal process to be followed. As I said in response to an earlier question, the Government completely understand that any organisation that is proscribed has an absolute legal right to contest that decision. This Government will not stand in the way of that legal process, and we will respond in a reasonable and responsible way. There is a legal appeal under way. That will run its course, and then we will have a legal ruling. The Government will, of course, abide by that.

I really do not think that that is the case. At every stage of these proceedings, the Government have been absolutely clear about the important right—the cornerstone of our democracy—of people to protest about matters about which they are concerned. This Government have not done anything to prevent people from doing that. We saw that this weekend: tens of thousands of people having their say. They were able to do so in a way that was lawful and did not require them to be arrested, because they had not broken the law.

First, the Home Secretary is meeting our Five Eyes allies who are here for the five-country ministerial. That is incredibly important work in securing our alliances with our United States, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand allies. These are important partnerships that this Government value.

I entirely understand why the hon. Lady may wish to raise concerns in the way she has. She made an important point about evidence, and I give her an assurance that we have put into the public domain all the evidence we have been able to.

I completely acknowledge that the concerns the hon. Member has expressed are entirely genuine and well-meaning. I hope he understands the importance that we attach to the rule of law. We do not think that people should be excepted from the rule of law because they are of a particular age, have a disability or have a particular professional background.

First, let me say to the hon. Gentleman that neither the Government nor I are seeking to make the comparison he offers. What we do believe is that people should follow the law. It is a criminal offence to seek to support a proscribed group.

As I have said previously, I understand the concerns that are being expressed. The hon. Gentleman refers to somebody holding a placard. They are holding a placard that expresses support for a proscribed organisation, and that is a criminal offence.

I hope very much that there is consensus across the House about the desperate situation in Gaza and the middle east. I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand that the Government will do everything they can to work with partners and allies to seek to bring a resolution to that desperate situation.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the remarks that have been published recently by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation.

There have been significant numbers of arrests over the weekend related to this matter and I want to be very clear: we will continue to enforce the law.

The hon. Gentleman will have heard the response I gave earlier to questions on that specific point. I would gently say to him that 17 police officers were assaulted over the weekend, and, while I completely understand why people want to refer to non-violent protest, and I completely accept that the majority of people were behaving in a non-violent way, I hope that he and others will join with me in absolutely condemning any attack on the police that took place over the weekend.

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I can give him an absolute assurance that we work very closely with the police to ensure that they have the resources they need and the necessary legislative framework in order to do their difficult job. As he will understand from his own part of the world, it is important that the police are able to enforce the law without fear or favour. It is worth pointing out that the police work closely with organisers each week to facilitate safe, lawful protests, and I know that they will continue to do so. Hundreds of thousands of people have been able to make their voices heard, while only a very tiny minority have been arrested for breaking the law.