Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism 2025-07-02

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.

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?

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?

Question

Rather than rushing this order through Parliament, should it not be delayed until the judicial process has concluded?

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?

Question

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

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

Question

Will the Minister give way?

Question

Will the Minister give way?

Question

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

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?