The Home Secretary did not provide a specific response to this question but acknowledged the concerns raised by the shadow minister regarding the Prevent programme and the need to address the disproportionate impact of terrorism from certain groups.

The Home Secretary acknowledged the concerns raised about the Islamic Human Rights Commission and the Iranian regime but did not specify actions to address these concerns directly.

The Home Secretary did not provide a specific response to this question but acknowledged the pledge and the ongoing review of such matters.

The Home Secretary did not explicitly respond to this question but expressed a commitment to condemning extremism and hate speech.

The Home Secretary did not provide a specific response but acknowledged the need to address extremism and hate speech and to protect British citizens.

Shabana Mahmood acknowledged the concerns and announced a review by Ken Macdonald to ensure consistency in law enforcement. She emphasised the importance of the Prevent programme functioning properly and stated that the Islamic Human Rights Commission is under statutory inquiry by the Charity Commission. She also addressed the issue of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, stating that the Government has accepted recommendations to proscribe the organisation. She highlighted the importance of free speech while ensuring that political views are expressed within legal boundaries.

Shabana Mahmood stated that the IRGC is already sanctioned in its entirety and that the Government will take forward the recommendations made by Jonathan Hall KC to proscribe the organisation at the earliest opportunity.

The Home Secretary disagreed with the Liberal Democrat's characterisation of her actions as authoritarian, arguing that the measures were necessary to protect minority communities and maintain public safety. She stated that the Government is taking steps to address the threat posed by the IRGC, but emphasised the need to act with care and speed. She also noted that the issues raised by the Liberal Democrat should not be conflated with the proscription of Palestine Action.

The Home Secretary stated that the Government is working closely with the security agencies to address the threat posed by the Iranian regime, including looking carefully at allegations regarding the new supreme leader of the Iranian regime. She assured the MP that the Government is taking all necessary steps to keep the country safe.

The Home Secretary stated that the Government is looking carefully at the allegations and expects the police and security services to respond appropriately. She assured the MP that the Government takes all levels of state threat very seriously and works closely with security agencies to keep the country safe.

The Home Secretary stated that a live police investigation is taking place and she cannot comment on the case until the criminal justice process is complete. She assured the MP that the Government works closely with Counter Terror Policing and security services to monitor threats and take appropriate measures to keep individuals and organisations safe.

The Home Secretary thanked the MP for his remarks and agreed that people in the country have the right to support the Palestinian people, their right to self-determination, and their desire for an end to conflict. She noted that the Government's decision does not prevent anyone from expressing political views or participating in peaceful protest. She also stated that there are powers under the Public Order Act for the police to place conditions on static protests, which can relate to both time and location.

The House will be pleased to know that I decline the invitation to learn any lessons from the Liberal Democrats—not just on this occasion, but for evermore. We will bring forward measures as soon as we can, proceeding with care due to the complexity of the matter. We have accepted the recommendations made by Jonathan Hall KC and are working at pace to move forward. The conditions for a static protest are operational matters for the Met police, and I have confidence in the police’s ability to manage protests safely.

I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but I am Labour all day long. The bar for any banning order is indeed high. People are allowed to have their own views, and we should not seek to shut down views which, although offensive or provocative, are still within the law. The test has been met in the specific circumstances set out for the public procession.

The right hon. Gentleman is right that articles 9 to 11 are relevant. However, those are qualified rights, and the legal arrangements in the Public Order Act are fully in compliance with our convention obligations. The Met police have been policing the al-Quds Day procession for many years and have never sought a ban despite facing pressure. They have assessed the risk posed by this procession and made a fair point.

Any conditions that may or may not be placed on a static protest are operational matters for the police. The law treats static protests and moving processions differently due to the nature of the policing challenges. The police have the powers to place conditions on static protests, and they have used these powers well to date.

I will bank the fact that the hon. Gentleman agrees with my instincts on this one. We work closely with Counter Terrorism policing and our security services to monitor threats posed to individuals in the UK by foreign states. We are always ready to take any appropriate action. The police and the security services take action every day.

The Charity Commission has powers to launch its own inquiries and enforce compliance. There is an ongoing Charity Commission investigation into the overall body relating to the IHRC. Once the Charity Commission has completed that work, it will take appropriate action. We will not hesitate to take further action in that area if we need to do so.

Each case has to be dealt with on its own facts. The “Unite the Kingdom” march was very large. The police did not seek this power because, based on their own risk assessment, they assessed that it was possible for that march to take place safely and that they could police it safely, as well as the counter march that took place, which was smaller in nature. If they had made such a request, I would obviously have had to consider that request based on the full facts disclosed to me in the risk assessment. The hon. Gentleman should not conflate multiple different things. There is a very specific risk that is being posed by the march on this occasion, given the international context and given that there will actually be five marches; there is the main march by those behind the al-Quds Day rally and then there are the four counter-protesting marches. He must recognise the unique challenge posed by five marches taking place at the same time in this international context. That is different from every other kind of protest and march that has taken place. I would hope that he does not conflate the two, because that could cause a loss of confidence across our communities. Marches take place every day on a whole range of issues—international and domestic in nature—but the police almost never ask for those to be banned. In fact, such a request has never been made of me. I think the last time this power was used was in something like 2010 or 2012—many, many years ago. This is a unique situation, given the current context and the unique policing challenge of five different marches at the same time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can focus a little more on the facts, rather than the hyperbole with which he began his question.

We already have strong laws and other measures in this country on inciting violence, and I would expect the police to always bring the full force of the law on anybody found to be contravening our laws without fear or favour. It is important that we respect and rely on our legal framework, because we do have one of the strongest legal frameworks in the world on all these matters. The Government will always take further action if it is necessary, but I do believe our current framework allows us to strike the right balance on protecting individual freedoms. Even if they are offensive and even if they are provocative, they should still be protected, but as long as that is within the confines of the law.