Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025

Motion to Approve

15:47:00

Moved by

That the draft Order laid before the House on 30 June be approved. Relevant document: 30th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).

My Lords, this order was laid before the House on 30 June. I am grateful to the House for its consideration of this draft order, which will see three distinct groups proscribed. They are Maniacs Murder Cult, Palestine Action and the Russian Imperial Movement. The proscription of these three organisations will reaffirm the UK’s zero-tolerance approach to terrorism, regardless of its form or underlying ideology. It may be helpful to noble Lords if I first set out some background to the power of the proscription order. To proscribe an organisation, the Home Secretary must reasonably believe that it is concerned with terrorism. This means that an organisation commits or participates in terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism, or is otherwise concerned with terrorism. Noble Lords will, I am sure, welcome knowing that some 80 terrorist organisations are currently proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. Proscription is, rightly, ideologically neutral. It judges an organisation not on its politics but on its actions and the actions that it is willing to deploy in pursuit of its cause. The UK’s definition of “terrorism” was established in law a quarter of a century ago. It has stood the test of time and had extensive scrutiny since. The legislation currently has three specific limbs. The first is that the use or threat of action must reach a certain level of seriousness, such as serious violence or serious damage to property. The second is that the use or threat must be designed to influence a Government or intimidate the public, or a section of the public. The third is that the use or threat must be made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause. Successive Independent Reviewers of Terrorism Legislation, a number of whom still sit in this House, have upheld the UK’s terrorism definition as effective and fit for purpose, even as the threat from terrorism has evolved. Proscription is one of the most powerful counterterrorism tools available to the Government. I reassure the House that any decision to proscribe is taken with great care following rigorous consideration. Jonathan Hall KC, in his report on the operation of the Terrorism Acts in 2022, reaffirmed that principle. We have three organisations before the House. I turn to the measure and shall speak to the proposed additions to the list of proscribed organisations in the order in which they are taken. First, Maniacs Murder Cult, also known as “MMC”, is an insidious, white supremacist, neo-Nazi organisation that operates online and across borders. It aims to encourage individuals to engage in acts of violence against people it perceives as anti-social, including homeless people, drug addicts and migrants—all to further its ideology and degrade human society through violence. The Government have assessed that MMC commits, prepares for, promotes and encourages acts of terrorism. MMC members and leaders have claimed a number of violent attacks globally that were committed in pursuit of the group’s aims. MMC supplies instructional material that could increase the capability or motivation of an aspiring attacker, including a guide that provides information on how to attack someone fatally with a knife and use a vehicle as a weapon. Members and non-members share MMC’s material online, including videos of violent attacks, to encourage further violence in support of its ideology. I regret to the tell the House that on 22 May, a 21 year-old Georgian national considered to be one of MMC’s leaders, who is known as “Commander Butcher”, was extradited to the United States—by regret, I mean that we have go to the extent of extraditing somebody—and is set to stand trial in New York for soliciting hate crimes and acts of mass violence. In the indictment, he is alleged to have recruited individuals online to promote MMC’s ideologies by committing acts of murder, arson, bombing and mass poisoning in New York, targeted specifically at members of ethnic minority groups, homeless people and Jewish schoolchildren. I hope that case in New York illustrates that MMC has a truly transnational audience, including in the UK. It does not matter where the leaders of this network are based; if they are capable of inspiring acts of violence and terror they should be dealt with. Vulnerable individuals, such as minors, are particularly exposed to the horrific material MMC publishes and distributes online. Frankly, the Government will not stand by and allow the terrorist threat and wider societal harms caused by MMC to persist. Proscribing MMC is key to help deter and divert individuals from engaging with MMC’s violent content and will send a clear signal to social media companies to remove MMC’s material from their platforms. The threat posed by MMC must be taken extremely seriously, whether it is inspiring acts of violence against our people or influencing young people to commit those acts. We will not hesitate to take action against groups such as these to keep our country safe. I turn to the second group, which is Palestine Action. The public attention it has garnered should not be confused with legitimacy; nor should a group formed five years ago be conflated with the legitimate campaign for Palestinian rights and statehood, which has existed in our country—and, indeed, across both Houses of Parliament—for more than five decades. I want to be clear, and I hope that this will help noble Lords in their consideration: proscription of Palestine Action does not seek to ban protests that support Palestine. There are many ways in which people can continue to lawfully express their support for Palestine without being a member or supporter of Palestine Action. Freedom of expression and freedom of assembly are cornerstones in our democracy. I have protested; I know of many other Members who have protested against various things in our lives, and we have done so fairly and openly. It is a fundamental right, and this Government will respect and protect those rights. I will always defend the rights of British people to engage in legitimate and peaceful processes and to stand up for the causes in which they believe. Essential as these rights are, they do not provide a blank cheque for this particular group to seriously damage property or subject members of the public to fear and violence. The attack on Brize Norton on 20 June has understandably provoked widespread shock and anger, but the reality is that this is just the latest episode in Palestine Action’s long history of harmful activity. Palestine Action has orchestrated a nationwide campaign of property damage, featuring attacks that have resulted in serious damage to property and crossed the threshold from direct criminal action into terrorism. Palestine Action members have used violence against people responding at the scene of attacks. For their role in co-ordinated attacks, members of the organisation have been charged with serious offences, including violent disorder, grievous bodily harm with intent, and aggravated burglary, which is an offence involving a weapon. Despite some of the rhetoric to the contrary, the group’s own materials have stated that the organisation is not non-violent. This is echoed in the actions of its members, who have committed atrocious attacks. The Government have to consider all the evidence, and the Home Secretary and my honourable friend Dan Jarvis, the Minister for Security, have concluded that Palestine Action is concerned in terrorism and should be proscribed. I hope that the House will understand that I am not able to comment on specific intelligence or go into details about incidents that are currently sub judice. However, I can provide a summary of the group’s activities, and it is right that I make those positions clear to the House. Since its inception in 2020, Palestine Action has orchestrated and enacted a campaign of direct criminal action against businesses and institutions, including key national infrastructure and defence firms that provide services and supplies to support our efforts in Ukraine, NATO, our Five Eyes allies and the UK defence enterprise. Over time, but most importantly and notably since the start of 2024, Palestine Action’s activity has increased in frequency and severity. Its targets have broadened to include financial firms, charities, universities and government buildings. Its methods have become more aggressive, with its members demonstrating a willingness to use violence. Some of Palestine Action’s own materials state: “We are not a non-violent organisation and we have specific targets”. The group has a footprint in all 45 policing regions in the United Kingdom, and has pledged to escalate its campaign. This pattern of activity cannot be allowed to continue. In applying the legislative framework, the Government assess that Palestine Action commits acts of terrorism. In several attacks, Palestine Action has committed acts of serious damage to property, with the aim of progressing its political cause and intimidating and influencing the public and the Government. These include attacks on Thales in Glasgow in 2022 and, last year, on Instro Precision in Kent and Elbit Systems UK in Bristol. In such attacks, Palestine Action members have forced entry on to premises armed with a variety of weapons and damaged or demolished property, causing millions of pounds-worth of criminal damage. As the House will have heard, Palestine Action members have used violence against individuals who were responding at the scene at the time. During Palestine Action’s attack against Thales and the defence factory in Glasgow in 2022, the group caused over £1 million of damage, including parts of essential submarine materials. Palestine Action has caused panic among staff, who feared for their safety as pyrotechnics and smoke bombs were thrown in an area when staff were evacuating from that area. The sheriff who passed custodial sentences for the perpetrators said: “Throwing pyrotechnics into areas where people are being evacuated could hardly be described as non-violent”.

16:00:00

The Government have also assessed that Palestine Action prepares for terrorism. The organisation has provided practical advice to assist its members with conducting significant levels of property damage at targets across the UK to further its cause. Let me give noble Lords an example. Palestine Action released an “undercover manual” which encourages its members to create small groups or cells and provides guidance about how to conduct activity against private companies and government buildings. The manual explains how to operate covertly and evade arrest, and provides a link to a website also created by Palestine Action that contains a map of target locations across the United Kingdom. The Government have assessed that Palestine Action promotes and encourages terrorism. This includes glorification of its attacks involving serious property damage on social media.

Palestine Action’s attacks are not victimless crimes. As I have mentioned, employees have experienced physical violence, intimidation and harassment. They have been prevented from entering their place of work. The extortion and real-world costs cannot be continuously absorbed by individuals and companies acting lawfully—all of them in the national interest. I have to say that we would not tolerate this activity from organisations if they were motivated by Islamist or extreme right-wing ideologies, and therefore I cannot tolerate it from Palestine Action.

By implementing this measure, we will remove Palestine Action’s veil of legitimacy, tackle its financial support and degrade its efforts to recruit and radicalise people into committing terrorist activity in its name. Palestine Action is not a legitimate protest group. People engaged in lawful protest do not need weapons. People engaged in lawful protest do not throw smoke bombs and fire pyrotechnics at innocent members of the public. People engaged in lawful protest do not cause millions of pounds of damage to national security infrastructure, including submarines and defence equipment for NATO.

I want to reassure noble Lords that proscribing Palestine Action will not impinge on people’s rights to protest. Those who wish to lawfully protest and express support for Palestine have always been able to and can continue to do so. Nor is this decision related to any UK policy on the Israel-Gaza conflict. The Government have been clear they want an immediate ceasefire and will continue to oppose the expansion of Israel’s operations in Gaza. Rather, proscribing Palestine Action will ban an organisation whose actions have no place in British society and give law enforcement the tools it needs to protect our nation’s security and keep the public safe.

Finally, I turn to the Russian Imperial Movement. The Russian Imperial Movement, or RIM, as I will now call it, is a white supremacist nationalist organisation that seeks to create a new Russian imperial state. The methods that RIM is using to try to achieve those aims threaten UK, Euro-Atlantic and wider international security and prosperity. RIM conducts combat activity via its paramilitary unit, the Russian Imperial Legion, which has fought alongside Russian forces and other pro-Russian right-wing extremist groups in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict. In doing so, the Government assess that it has committed or participated in acts of terrorism. RIL, as I will now call it, is likely using serious violence and property damage to intimidate Ukrainian opponents into ceding territory to a Russian state, furthering the Russian Imperial Movement’s aims.

The Russian Imperial Movement also prepares for terrorism. It manages a paramilitary training programme known as Partisan, which increases the capability of attendees to conduct terrorist attacks. Its training programme has enabled individuals to perpetrate terrorist attacks in western Europe in the past. The Russian Imperial Movement also maintains relationships with other extreme right-wing terrorist groups. By proscribing RIM, the UK will reinforce our steadfast support for Ukraine and its resistance to Russian aggression, and our commitment to counter future threats from extreme right-wing terrorism in the UK and Europe.

I will finish by reminding the House that the first duty every day of the Government and the Home Office is to keep the country safe. When our collective security and our values are threatened, we must respond accordingly. To maintain confidence in the UK’s counterterrorism framework, we must apply it without bias. Terrorism, in whatever form and driven by whatever ideology it takes, is unacceptable, and we must and will tackle it head-on. I therefore hope, with the explanations I have given, that noble Lords will support the order, but obviously I will listen to the debate and, if required, respond to points raised by Members in due course. I commend the order to the House.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

At end to insert “but this House regrets that the proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation (1) undermines civil liberties, including civil disobedience, (2) constitutes a misuse of anti-terrorism legislation, given that offences such as property damage can be dealt with under other criminal law, (3) suppresses dissent against the United Kingdom’s policy on Israel, and (4) criminalises support for a protest group, thereby creating a chilling effect on freedom of expression.”

My Lords, when I tabled this regret amendment yesterday, my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle gave me some advice. She said, “Don’t lose your temper”. I am going to try to do my best to heed her advice. I thank the Minister for his engagement; he has been very kind and polite, and I thank him for that. I had better state for the record that I am a protester of many decades, but I believe in non-violence: that is a limit for me. However, there are many reasons why proscribing Palestine Action is a bad idea. Listening to the Minister, I thought that his descriptions of the three organisations had very distinct differences and that the actions of Palestine Action did not appear to have the same calibre of evil as those of the other two. Therefore, collectively organising these three into one SI is perhaps a little bit sneaky of this Government. Palestine Action is not like any other group that the British Government have so far declared a terrorist organisation. I was 12 years on the Met Police Authority and in that time I had lots of anti-terrorist briefings. To me, the actions of Palestine Action do not ring true as terrorist activities. This SI also goes against the promises—

Would the noble Baroness give way momentarily?

I am so sorry, but no. If the noble Lord does not mind, I would like to finish my speech.

Let him intervene.

No. This SI goes directly against the promises made by Ministers when the anti-terror laws were introduced. The then Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, clarified that if direct action groups “do not engage in serious violence … the new definition cannot catch them”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/12/1999; col. 227.] The current definition of terrorism includes property damage to cover “actions which might not be violent in themselves but which can, in a modern society, have a devastating impact”. Based on what the Minister has said and what the Government have told us, Palestine Action’s activities have not had the potential for a “devastating impact” on society, and nor have its activities included a pattern of serious violence. Yet the Government are putting it into the same category as Islamic State and al-Qaeda, setting an incredibly dangerous precedent that will impact on numerous peaceful campaigning groups. There is a long and noble tradition—

Is the noble Baroness prepared to answer questions about—

No, sweetie. Noble Lords can come in at the end, okay? There is a long and noble tradition of the use of direct action by protest movements, including the suffragettes—yesterday we celebrated the anniversary of the Equal Franchise Act, when women were finally given the right to vote—anti-apartheid protests, Greenpeace and peace campaigners such as CND and the women of Greenham Common. I ask the Minister: under the Government’s proposal, would they also be retrospectively branded as terrorists? What about Queen Boudicca, a freedom fighter for the British tribes under the Roman yoke? This Government would call her a terrorist and say there is no place in British society for her, either. Campaigners committing criminal damage have been annoying the public and Governments for well over 100 years. The police take them to court, the newspapers owned by rich people condemn them and occasionally we get a change in government policy. That is rather how our damaged democracy has been working. I completely agree that democracies have to defend themselves against violent attacks on their citizens aimed at furthering a political cause, which is why we should be uniting to proscribe the other two groups that the noble Lord has described. But democracies have to defend themselves against politicians choosing censorship as a way of silencing opposition to unpopular policies, which is what I think the Government are doing here. That brings me to my most important point. This proscription order undermines the entire consensus behind our country’s anti-terror laws. I ask the Minister and every noble Lord whether they can name another group that they are about to proscribe that has hundreds of thousands of British people following it on social media. What exactly does the Minister think will happen to that support for Palestine Action from such a large swathe of British people who suddenly feel, after Wednesday, when the order takes place, that they might be affected if they morally oppose genocide and the terrorism laws being used to defend what is morally wrong? I do not agree with everything that this group has done, not by any means, but when I hear that businesses have been stopped supplying arms to the Israeli military in Gaza, I feel happy that that has happened.

On that point—

No, I am sorry; I will not take interventions. There is an opportunity at the end. Some 53% of British people agree with stopping sending arms to Israel, and I would expect any Government with a sense of morality to do that. Instead, it has been left to groups such as Palestine Action to take the lead. If you want Palestine Action to disappear, stop sending arms to Israel and giving military support to a foreign Government engaged in ethnic cleansing. Palestine Action has done many things that I do not agree with, but spraying paint on refuelling planes that campaigners believe are used to help the ethnic cleansing in Gaza is not terrorism; it is criminal damage, which we already have laws for. It is gesture politics, and the MoD itself has declared that it did not block any planned aircraft movements or stop any operations. Palestine Action would have been in court to face justice, but so would the Government on that basis, and I think that is what Ministers have actually been rather concerned about. Palestine Action has a five-year history of things it has done, but as soon as Ministers realised that a jury might not convict it of spray-painting at Brize Norton, they declared it a terrorist group. The Government were very aware of how likely it was that a jury would free Palestine Action campaigners because of the public’s horror over our involvement in the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. They would remember that the Prime Minister was the lawyer who defended the “Fairford five” after anti-war protesters broke into RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire to sabotage United States bombers before the Iraq war. He argued that while their actions were unlawful, they were justified as an attempt to prevent war crimes, asserting that the Iraq war lacked legal basis under international law due to an absence of a clear UN resolution. I can easily see why a jury might choose not to convict the campaigners at Brize Norton in the same way. Subsequent legal appeals, based on the legal threshold of terrorism when events do not endanger life, could cost us, the taxpayer, a lot of money. This Government have clamped down on civil liberties in many ways, through many laws, and for me this is a step too far. I deeply regret that we have reached this point, and I beg to move the amendment.

My Lords, I have supported my party for nearly 10 years since I joined this House, sometimes late like the last two nights, but I cannot support this Motion, as my noble friend understands. That gives me no joy because I have been a long-standing colleague of his as a Welsh MP. Indeed, he was a very effective Minister when I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. To be absolutely clear, I support the right of Israel to exist and of Israelis to enjoy full security. I am also a long-standing supporter of Palestinian rights to self-determination in their own state. I was vehemently opposed to the antisemitism tolerated under Jeremy Corbyn’s ill-fated leadership and, as far as I remember, I have never participated in any Palestine Action protest or been on any of its platforms. I sought advice from the clerk of the Table Office to amend this Motion so that it proscribed only the two Nazi-like paramilitary groups it lists and not Palestine Action but was advised that this was not procedurally possible.

16:15:00

In 1969-70, I was proud to lead a militant campaign of direct action to disrupt all-white racist South African rugby and cricket tours, and we succeeded in getting them stopped for two decades. I would no doubt have been stigmatised as a terrorist today, rather than vilified as I was then. That militant action could have been blocked by this Motion, as could other anti-apartheid activity, including militant protests to stop Barclays Bank recruiting new students on university campuses, eventually forcing Barclays to withdraw from apartheid South Africa.

Remember that Nelson Mandela himself was labelled a terrorist by the apartheid Government, by British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, by the United States and by other western Governments during much of the Cold War. Mandela even remained on the US terrorism watch-list until 2008, many years after becoming South Africa’s first democratically elected President and receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. After his African National Congress had been banned, Nelson Mandela was convicted for sabotage and conspiracy to overthrow the apartheid Government when he backed armed struggle, despite strongly opposing the very essence of terrorism, namely violent and indiscriminate attacks on innocent civilians. Nevertheless, he became a global icon and in 1996 President Mandela addressed both Houses of Parliament in Westminster Hall.

The suffragettes, too, have gained iconic status, rightly treated as heroines today, yet they could have been suppressed under this proscription. They used violence against property in a strategic manner to demand voting rights for women as part of civil disobedience protests when their peaceful protests seemed futile. They intended to highlight the injustice of denying women the vote and to provoke a reaction that kept the issue in the public eye. Like Nelson Mandela, they were vilified at the time, including strident denunciations by Members of your Lordships’ House. Suffragettes attacked shop windows, government buildings and political party offices, sometimes using hammers, stones or iron bars. They also set fire to unoccupied buildings such as churches, railway stations, sports pavilions and empty country houses, intending to cause material loss without causing personal injury. Suffragettes cut telegraph and telephone wires to disrupt government and commercial operations. They even hid small homemade bombs inside mailboxes and attempted to bomb Westminster Abbey and Prime Minister David Lloyd George’s unoccupied house.

Is there not a fundamental distinction between Nelson Mandela and the suffragettes on the one hand and our society today in which everybody has the right to vote? We live in a democratic society in which there are ample means of expressing your views.

Of course democracy did not exist in South Africa at the time and women did not have the vote at the time. I concede that point but, frankly, Palestine Action members spraying paint on military aircraft in Brize Norton seems positively moderate by comparison with what the suffragettes did, and those alleged to have done this are being prosecuted for criminal damage, as indeed they should be.

I simply want to make what I hope is a helpful point to the House. In case noble Lords have not seen it, four individuals have now been charged with the alleged offences at Brize Norton. As a new Member of your Lordships’ House, I have to confess that I am not entirely certain what the sub judice rule is in the House, but it seems to me that we ought to exercise a certain level of caution in commenting on that specific offence for fear of prejudicing the trial of the four individuals who have been charged with those offences as of last night.

I totally agree with the noble Lord, but it is like that that they have been charged. There are plenty of other criminal offences that such activity could attract rather than treating young people as terrorists because they feel frustrated about the failure to stop mass killings and bombings of Palestinians in Gaza. That is the point I am making. There is plenty of ammunition in the legal armoury to do that.

I may have a helpful interjection. The charges brought against the four are all criminal charges, not terrorism charges, which is an important distinction that points exactly to what the noble Lord is saying. Protests can be unlawful but not necessarily terrorism.

I am making exactly that point. By the way, someone should be disciplined for permitting such an easy breach of security at a key military airfield such as Brize Norton. What if the Palestine Action protesters had been real terrorists? Imagine what would have happened then.

There is nothing in this order that will prevent young people protesting about what Israel is doing in Gaza. It is pretty shocking to hear people compare Palestine Action with the suffragettes and Nelson Mandela. Is the noble Lord seriously suggesting that it is non-violent when people smash their way in armoured vehicles into factories where ordinary working people are at work and when security guards and police have been injured in such attacks with sledgehammers? That is not non-violent protest.

I am not suggesting that it is. I completely agree with the noble Lord, but there is a difference between that kind of action and the action generally taken by young supporters of Palestine Action. Whether or not I agree with it—I have never supported its activity—there is a great difference between that and terrorism. If you start labelling people as terrorists willy-nilly right across the board, you go down a very dangerous route.

I have great regard for the noble Lord, but will he answer a simple question in a simple way? Does he accept that the actions of Palestine Action as described by the Minister are criminal actions that fall within the definition of terrorism and therefore are available, if the Director of Public Prosecutions so decides, to be prosecuted as terrorist offences?

The acts at Brize Norton were certainly criminal acts and should be prosecuted, as they are being at this very moment. As has been described, it is a matter of sub judice. Please remember that the suffragettes were arrested and subjected to harsh terms of imprisonment, including force-feeding when they went on hunger strikes. We are trying to discuss the contemporary situation, but we should consider it against the background of historical reality. I seek to make that point, because it is very relevant. They went on hunger strikes and were subject to force-feeding for doing so. Now look at the real terrorists: al-Qaeda and Islamic State. Members of al-Qaeda suicide-attacked New York’s twin towers on 11 September 2001, killing 2,753 people. That is real terrorism. Islamic State deliberately targeted its civilians in public spaces to instil fear, spread panic, gain media attention and punish any groups or Governments opposing them. ISIS became notorious for filmed beheadings and executions. It engaged in widespread sexual slavery, particularly of Yazidi women. That is real terrorism. In 2015, Islamic State members killed 130 people in Paris. In 2016, its suicide bombers struck Brussels Airport and the metro system, killing 32, and it attacked Istanbul Airport, killing 45. In Easter 2019, Islamic State terrorists bombed churches and hotels, killing over 250 people, in Sri Lanka. That is real terrorism, real terrorists. Nazi-like US racists and, here in the United Kingdom, the IRA also committed terrible terrorist atrocities, targeting or killing innocent civilians. They are properly and rightly labelled terrorists. This Government are treating Palestine Action as equivalent to Islamic State or al-Qaeda, which is intellectually bankrupt, politically unprincipled and morally wrong. Frankly, I am deeply ashamed, which is why I support the regret amendment.

My Lords, I welcome my noble friend’s statement but start with a sense of disappointment that the Home Office did not see fit to give the intelligence assessment behind this, which he rightly says cannot be made public, to the ISC. He is a former member of the ISC, so he knows our remits. I understand that, yesterday, his colleague in the other place, Dan Jarvis, made attempts to contact certain privy counsellors to give them a Privy Council brief. The committee met this morning and was quite angry that the Government had not given it this information before this legislation was put forward; no attempt had been made by the Home Office to do so. My noble friend well knows the remit of the committee under the Justice and Security Act, so I ask him to remind his colleague in the other place and his civil servants that the ISC is not a Select Committee of Parliament; it is a parliamentary committee set up by statute, which has a right to information. I think we agreed this morning that we expect this intelligence assessment as soon as practically possible. I welcome the inclusion on the list of the Russian Imperial Movement. This appeared in the ISC’s Extreme Right-Wing Terrorism report in 2022. It is a neo-nationalist paramilitary organisation based in St Petersburg. It has defined links to international white supremacist movements throughout the world and it is a clear danger. As we said in our report, in April 2020, the Americans proscribed this organisation. At the time, from the intelligence we saw, it did not meet the threshold, so it will be interesting, when we get our briefing from the Home Office, to see what has changed over that period. I have no problem at all with proscribing that horrible, detestable organisation. I turn now to Palestine Action, and I think the Minister’s point is right. I would defend to the death the right of anyone in this country to protest peacefully. That is something that we should celebrate in a democracy, but it is not what we are dealing with in Palestine Action. It is progressing a false narrative that the UK is arming Israel to bomb innocent civilians—the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, used the word “genocide”—in Gaza. Arms exports from the UK to Israel in 2023 were worth £8.2 million. The Government have already moved to restrict some exports to Israel after the conflict, but this narrative justifies in the minds of members of that organisation attacking defence industries across the UK—and they are not even very good at it. Some of the sites that they are attacking have nothing to do with Israel and do not export anything to Israel. There was an issue around the F35, but we do not export F35s to Israel. We do produce components, and I am proud that 15% of the content of every F35 in the world is from the UK, but we are not directly exporting them. The court upheld that view. If we suddenly said that we are not going to be part of that contract, it would affect our security, because not only our allies use that plane; the UK does as well. So that is complete nonsense. Palestine Action is attacking companies legitimately involved in the production of instruments and pieces of kit that keep us and our allies safe. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, asked whether he would have been included in this legislation when he was protesting against apartheid. It crossed my mind that he was a liberal many years ago and that, clearly, in older age he is reverting back to his youth. In answer to him I say yes; if he were damaging property and attacking the national security of this country, he would be included in this legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, pointed out, it meets the threshold in this legislation.

16:30:00

Attacking, for example, Thales’s systems in Glasgow—I struggle to understand what it actually exports to Israel, but it is very important to our nuclear deterrent—would be a reason for proscribing an organisation. This is not about individuals with youthful inexperience; this is a well-organised organisation targeting individual companies. As has already been outlined, it is not doing it by standing outside with a placard; if it were doing that, I would be completely happy with that. Instead, it is going in, destroying things vital to our nation’s safety and then attacking individuals.

We then have the false narrative, which I think the noble Baroness referred to, about why Brize Norton was attacked: that somehow the UK is supplying secret intelligence—because there are flights over the Mediterranean and Israel—to the Israelis to then target people in Gaza. That is just not the case. If she wants information on that, she should look at, along with all noble Lords, our 2023 ISC report on international partnerships, which lays down very clearly the restrictions around the passing on of information to our allies. It is not a nudge-wink system; it is a legal process. I wish that people would not follow these false narratives.

I know it plays into certain people’s hands to argue that somehow Britain is arming Israel to attack. I condemn some of the actions of Israel in Gaza—they cannot be justified—but to say that Britain is arming those individuals to do that is just not the case. The idea that the UK is supplying intelligence, because we have military and air assets collecting intelligence, as we do in all parts of the world, in the eastern Mediterranean, and that it is therefore justified to damage a Voyager tanker aircraft at Brize Norton because it refuels our aircraft on those operations, is nonsense.

Noble Lords should please read our ISC report, because the legal restrictions and the codifying around how we share intelligence is there. It is not a secret; it is in the law. That would put things differently, and it shoots down completely the argument that is being portrayed by the noble Baroness, and those who want to disrupt the narrative, that somehow Britain is supplying intelligence to do that.

I support the statutory instrument before us today. Unfortunately, we are in a post-truth world. I suggest that people deal with just facts. What I have outlined today are the facts, not what people want to think the facts are to fit their narrative.

My Lords, I declare an interest as I had a recent trip to Israel, organised by Conservative Friends of Israel, to learn more about the consequences of the terrorist events of 7 October. I had not intended to speak in this debate had it just been the statutory instrument in front of us. I was provoked into doing so by the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, which I think is misplaced. I have to say that my experience is that, when Members advance arguments and are not willing to take questions, it is usually the sign of a very weak argument. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for taking an intervention. That shows somebody who has confidence in their arguments and is prepared to have them challenged. The fact that the noble Baroness was not even prepared to take an intervention from a single noble Lord I think demonstrates that she does not actually think her arguments are that strong.

My Lords—

Of course I will take an intervention.

The noble Lord had little choice then. First, I think it is entirely inappropriate in this discussion, which is fraught enough, to assume you know which side people are on around the Israel-Gaza situation. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and I disagree wholeheartedly, but I agree with her that there is real concern over this particular issue. Secondly, when you are trying to make a contribution and are heckled, with people standing up and calling out, and you are basically on a minority side, I think it is perfectly respectable for noble Lords to accept that you do not want to take interventions. To draw any other conclusion from that has a really unpleasant, nasty vibe about it. I am actually shocked. I am generally on the side of the people backing this proscription. At one point, listening to the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, I thought maybe people were being proscribed for misinformation. I have got to the point now where I do not know what the terrorist act is. However, I think it is completely wrong to assume that there is cowardice involved in not taking points from other Members.

I suggest we take the heat out of this a bit. Interventions are welcome, but noble Lords are not obliged to take them, and they should be brief.

I am grateful to the noble Lord. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said I was making assumptions about what views people have about Israel or Palestine. I do not think I made any assumptions about that at all. I just happen to think that, in a debate, it is helpful if people take questions and listen to the arguments of others and are prepared to deal with them. That is how in a democratic forum you test arguments. I think it is very helpful, and perfectly reasonable, for people to draw conclusions from the fact that people are not prepared to have their arguments challenged. That is all I was saying. Let me come to the Minister’s opening remarks. I strongly support the proscription of all three organisations mentioned in this statutory instrument. I am going to limit my remarks to Palestine Action, as that is the subject of the noble Baroness’s regret amendment, and draw attention to and support several things the Minister said. In part two of the amendment, the noble Baroness talks about the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation and mentions property damage. The Minister made it quite clear that, on multiple occasions, this particular group has been involved not just in property damage. The attack against the Thales factory in Glasgow caused over £1 million pounds-worth of damage and caused panic among the staff, who feared for their safety as pyrotechnics and smoke bombs were thrown into the area to which they were evacuating. When passing custodial sentence for the perpetrators, the sheriff said that throwing pyrotechnics at areas where people are being evacuated to cannot be described as non-violent. It is very clear that this organisation is careless about the effects of its actions on people. I am not going to draw attention to the specific event that is now the subject of criminal charges, but once you start attacking the defence assets of the United Kingdom—the people and property designed to keep this country safe—you cross a line. That is a line that peaceful protesters do not cross, and it helps support proscription.

In that case, would the noble Lord have proscribed the Greenham women?

I am talking about this statutory instrument. I will not go back over historical cases. I am talking about this particular case and the noble Baroness’s amendment; otherwise, we will, frankly, be here all day and trying the patience of noble Lords. Let me pick up the rest of the noble Baroness’s regret amendment, because that is what we are debating. The first part of it talks about undermining civil liberties, including civil disobedience. Nothing in this statutory instrument stops people carrying out acts of civil disobedience. This is about people who are specifically going about breaking the criminal law in a way that meets the test of terrorism in the Terrorism Act 2000. That is not triggered by people carrying out acts of civil disobedience. I listened carefully to the noble Baroness’s speech, and she did not set out any evidence to support the first part of her regret amendment. The second part, I have just dealt with. The third part is about suppressing dissent against the United Kingdom’s policy on Israel. Again, proscribing this organisation does nothing to stop people protesting about any aspect of the conduct of the Government of Israel in any way. People can contact their elected Members; they can go on demonstrations; they can do whatever they want in the media and all sorts of other things, but what you cannot do in a democratic country is use violence. Other examples were given in the debate in the other place yesterday of members of this organisation going out, tooled up with weapons, and being charged with offences that threaten other people. That is not a legitimate way to carry out dissent in a civilised country. As we know from this debate about the conduct of the Israeli Government and what they are doing both in Gaza and on the West Bank, nothing in this order stops people having views on both sides of that argument, both inside Parliament and outside. Again, the noble Baroness did not set out in her argument any evidence to support that part of her regret amendment. In the final part, the noble Baroness says that the order “criminalises support for a protest group, thereby creating a chilling effect on freedom of expression”. She refers in that part of the amendment to this organisation as a “protest group”. It is not a protest group. As the Minister set out very clearly, it describes itself as “not a non-violent organisation”. So, in its own words, it accepts that it uses violence. That is not a legitimate protest group. Again, there is nothing in this statutory instrument that in any way stops people having freedom of expression and carrying out protests. Again, the noble Baroness did not provide any evidence to back up that part of her amendment. There are four parts to the noble Baroness’s regret amendment. She has not made out a case with any evidence to support any part of it. I urge her to withdraw the amendment and allow this statutory instrument to reach the statute book so that the country can be safer from people who are willing to use terrorist methods to make arguments, while leaving the rest of us free to use the democratic means at our disposal on these important subjects.

My Lords, I will be brief. Invoking the terrorism laws has consequences and, although I do not object to invoking them in relation to any of these three groups, we need to understand properly what those consequences are. Many people want to speak, and I will make only one point, which is that the consequences of designation for individuals misguided enough to approve of, for example, Palestine Action are rather more draconian than the Explanatory Memorandum to this order suggests. Paragraph 5.20 of that document states: “It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to, or invite support for, a proscribed organisation. It is also a criminal offence to arrange a meeting to support a proscribed organisation”. That is an accurate summary of Section 11 and Section 12(1) and (2) of the Terrorism Act 2000. If you are a member or a promoter of a proscribed organisation, you can face up to 14 years in prison. However, since the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 introduced Section 12(1A) to the Terrorism Act 2000, you can also be looking at up to 14 years if you express “an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation”, without even needing an intention that your listener or listeners should agree—being reckless about that suffices. By our bringing Palestine Action, for example, within the ambit of the terrorism laws, anyone who is young and foolish enough to say that its heart is in the right place, or that the Government should listen to it, is committing a very serious offence for which they could be prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned as a terrorist. It is not their right to protest but the right of freedom of speech that is the issue here. Does the Minister agree that this 2019 offence takes us on to more sensitive territory than the others? Can he tell us whether its potential impact was considered as part of the Government’s analysis of these decisions, even though it was not referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum? Might it be a good idea, for future proscription debates, to ensure that the Explanatory Memorandum template is updated to make reference to the full arsenal of proscribed organisation offences?

16:45:00

My Lords, I, too, can be brief. I have deep concerns about proscribing Palestine Action. I do not think that the case has been made. I think this is a dangerous overreaction to populism expressed primarily in the British media. I also want to take this opportunity to commend the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for standing up and moving her amendment. We in this House talk a great deal about the principles of democracy, yet we are not often good at listening to unpopular or dissenting opinions, and I believe the way that she was piled on was completely inappropriate. I also wish to associate myself with the contribution of my noble friend—and I underline that—Lord Hain. It takes courage to question a Government. I stand here and have the freedom as a non-aligned Member of this House. I was a member of the Labour Party for 45 years and, as noble Lords know, had the Whip removed and subsequently resigned. I have the luxury of standing here and criticising without repercussions from my party in government. My noble friend Lord Hain, too, has shown immense courage. I did not intend to speak this afternoon, but I cannot sit here and allow this to go through with my silence and, thereby, my agreement. If the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, wishes to press her amendment, I will go into the Lobby to support her.

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords, everyone will be able to speak in this debate. We will hear from my noble friend Lady O’Grady next, then the noble Baroness.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend and the noble Baroness, and I thank the Minister for always listening to different perspectives with respect. We do not have to agree to be able to respect one another. I support the proscription of the paramilitary and white supremacist IRM—or RIM, as I now have to call them—and MMC. To me, they clearly meet the commonly understood definition of terrorism, which is the use of violence that threatens civilian lives. Palestine Action is different: in its bid to disrupt the arms trade, its members commit serious damage to property. In my view, they are not terrorists but criminals. Drawing the definition too broadly risks fragmenting the power of that term and our common understanding of what terrorism is. I also worry about the impact on community cohesion. My question is, what message would my noble friend the Minister send publicly, including to minority communities here in the UK, who may sincerely see this proscription of Palestine Action as, at best, a terrible distraction from the true terror we are all witnessing on our TV screens? Instead, the Government should do everything we can to help bring the hostages home, to seek justice for all victims of war crimes, to meet our duty under the UN convention to prevent and to punish genocide, and to secure an end to the unlawful occupation of Palestine with a two-state solution and lasting peace.

It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness and I certainly agree wholeheartedly with her final sentence. I too support a two-state solution, but I also support this SI and I am very grateful to the Minister for his clear explanation of why it is necessary. I have to say to the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Jones, for whom I have respect—we have often agreed on other issues—that to say that this group is not engaged in serious violence baffles me. I shall just suggest to noble Lords an incident from last August when Palestine Action used a repurposed prison van to smash through the perimeter of a research facility in Bristol. Of the security personnel who tried to intervene to stop them attacking the buildings, one was hospitalised with head injuries, two policemen who came along were attacked with sledgehammers and one ended up in hospital. So, when the Minister describes the tests for terrorism as being, one, to advance an ideological or racial cause, two, the intimidation of the public, and three, serious violence or serious damage to property that endangers life, I struggle to see how those examples do not meet the requirements for terrorism. I am grateful to the Government for acting swiftly to try to prevent people actually being killed, rather than endangering their lives.

My Lords, like others, I had not really intended to speak in this debate, but unfortunately, I have listened at times—while I respect other views—with incredulity at some of the remarks that have been made. This House rightly has a reputation for a wide range of expertise on almost every aspect of public life we can think of. It is often a pleasure to come here and listen to Members who have such in-depth knowledge on a great range of subjects; it is a true education in that regard. But I say, perhaps humbly, that I come from the part of the United Kingdom that has suffered most from terrorism throughout our lives. Sadly, for those of us from Northern Ireland, if there is one thing we have gained knowledge of through our lived experience, it is to know a terrorist organisation and to recognise one whenever we see it. The Minister is absolutely right: we judge terrorism not by ideology but by actions. There are many organisations whose views I disagree with. There are many organisations out there whose views I find repugnant. All three of these organisations are ones whose ideology I would not find any particular favour with, but that is not a reason to ban them. We judge them by their actions, by their violent conduct, by their disregard for or indeed targeting of human life, by their intimidation, by the damage they cause. This is not just, as was indicated by some, a one-off incident carried out by a few rogue members; we have seen from the information the Minister gave that all these organisations have systematically organised over a long period a wide range of activities which collectively meet the threshold of terrorism. Rightly, we defend the right to protest and to peacefully protest. Freedom of expression and the opportunity to voice very unpopular views are rightly ones that we should cherish. But when you move towards violent systematic attacks on society, as has been done by all three of these organisations, you cross the line into terrorism. For me, terrorism is terrorism. We go down a dangerous path if we start creating gradations of terrorism and, for example, we see some terrorists as “real terrorists”, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, with the implication that some are lesser terrorists, mild terrorists or terrorists with whom we have some sympathies for their ideological position. If the argument being made is that the threshold has not been met, what is the threshold? Do we wait until incidents happen in this country that result in a string of dead bodies? Is that really the test we are putting forward? The only solution is that once you have crossed the line, this House and this Government rightly need to show zero tolerance towards terrorism. That is the approach that we as a House should unite around. I therefore strongly support the actions of the Government on all three organisations.

My Lords, I compliment the Minister for summarising the situation, because no one has done so yet. The question seems to be, as has been so ably put by so many people, the difference between criminal activity and terrorism. There is a general acceptance that the actions of Palestine Action are criminal in all cases. The question we are really asking is, does it cross over into terrorism? I think it does, although I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said about the things that follow from such a proscription, which is something we need to be careful about. The issue I raise, following on from other noble Lords, is the actions against businesses that had no reason to be acted against. In May this year, Palestine Action claimed responsibility for an attack on a Jewish-owned business in north London. The glass front of the building was smashed and the floor defaced with red paint and slogans including “Drop Elbit”—Elbit being a defence manufacturer. The attack can be classified as antisemitic under the IHRA definition as the business is solely Jewish, as I am. It has no links to Elbit or to Israel, and the actions suggest that Palestine Action held the owners responsible for Israel’s actions. This is where the difference between purely criminal actions and terrorism starts. Palestine Action is a recruiting agent for the actions that have happened. I defend to the end anyone’s right to belong to any organisation supporting Palestine, the Palestinians, Israel or anybody. That is their right, and in our democracy, we have the right to give that support. For anyone who is currently a supporter of Palestine Action, if it is proscribed, there are plenty of other organisations they can join to push their points that are not points of violence. It is the violence that pushes it into terrorism, and I support the Government on this issue.

My Lords, the suggestion that Palestine Action is somehow helping the cause of the Palestinians is, I am afraid, rather nonsensical. The sort of damaging activity in which it is engaged serves only to further damage the cause of the Palestinians. I speak here as a Zionist, but as a Zionist who supports the Palestinian cause and who does so in a very practical way. My wife and I run a charity that supports young medical researchers from Israel, Palestine and Gaza. I have met many of the Gazan students we have supported over the years, and they value that support. So, I am a Zionist who supports the Palestinians. I think that if Palestine Action could do something supportive of the Palestinians instead of the destructive activities in which it engages, it would do much better. For that reason, I support the Minister’s view.

17:00:00

My Lords, I would like to make a point about why so many people across the UK, particularly young people, have joined Palestine Action. It is important that we recognise their frustrations at the current time. Direct action at military bases is nothing new, as many noble Lords have pointed out. Welsh women marched from Cardiff to Greenham Common and were joined by thousands more women along the way. They did not just march. They used a range of direct action tactics, including blockading the base and cutting the fence, to protest against nuclear weapons being held at that base. There is a long history of direct action across the UK that is perhaps not comfortable. The actions of Palestine Action are the direct actions of a civil disobedience group, not a terrorist group. That is why I support this regret amendment.

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, was brave in moving this regret amendment, and she should have been heard with more respect. I was one of those who suggested that she should give way, but I know it can seem like bullying in this House, and I think we should reflect on that. It is not a very good thing to gang up on someone who has a difficult job to do. I would also like to mention two others who have contributed and for whom I have great respect. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, joined the Cabinet in 2002, as I remember, as Secretary of State for Wales. He was a successful Secretary of State for Wales and then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Terrorism Act 2000 was in existence in 2002. Offences were added and other legislation was introduced while he was in the Cabinet, and I do not recall any occasion on which, publicly at least, the noble Lord protested, objected or resigned as a result of the creation of the body of terrorism law that now we have—he is confirming that—so I think that what he has said today is perhaps a little inconsistent with his history. Forgive me for saying so. I also commend the Minister strongly. I thought he gave a very balanced description, which in factual terms nobody has contradicted. He said that three bodies are being proscribed now. It is interesting that objections have not been made in relation to two of those bodies—probably because noble Lords do not really like what they do very much, because they are extreme right-wing terrorists—but exactly the same process has been gone through with them as with Palestine Action. What is that process? To examine intelligence that no doubt exists, but that we have not heard about. In this House, we have to be responsible and take it that there is an intelligence case behind what is proposed. Material evidence has been brought together that shows that this organisation, Palestine Action, like the other two, has carried out activities that fall within the definition of crime that can, and I emphasise “can”, be treated as terrorist. The context is that what has happened since the Terrorism Act 2000—since 9/11, in fact—is quite different from the world in which the suffragettes, the Greenham women and all the other examples that have been mentioned, including very successful anti-apartheid demonstrators such as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, lived. It is a given. That has not been objected to. Even the noble Baroness has not said that Palestine Action does not commit crimes that qualify as terrorist crimes, if they are prosecuted as such. Noble Lords should not assume that every time a crime is committed that could be prosecuted as such, it is. The Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions have to make a decision. One of the most important protections in our constitution, which we talk about all too rarely, is the discretion of the DPP not to prosecute in the public interest or for other reasons covered by the two-stage code test. It may well be that if silly supporters of the criminal acts of Palestine Action or these other two bodies are interviewed by the police, they will not be prosecuted under the Terrorism Act. We have to trust juries, and magistrates in summary cases, to ensure that the prosecution system is run fairly. In this House, and particularly in the other place, there is a huge amount of control available over the prosecution system. Let us be clear. If we do not like the definition of terrorism we have in our law, it is our duty as legislators to change it—and we have all decided not to change it. When it suits us, we encourage it to be used: something has to be done. When it is a bit inconvenient, we say that it is the most terrible thing on earth. The truth is the middle road, which has been given to us by the Minister. I urge your Lordships to act responsibly today, listening carefully to what has been said, taking into account what we can do in future, but accepting this instrument.

My Lords, I have a few short points. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has just said. First, I hope that when we vote, if we vote, we will entirely put out of our minds whether we sympathise with the Palestinian cause, as most of us do, and whether we regret what Israel has done in various respects. We are concerned with a violent group. It really does not matter whether the cause it articulates and supports is justified. The law in a civilised country simply cannot accept people using violence against people and property in support of a cause they believe to be right. No such law can survive in a civilised society. Secondly, if I understood him correctly, the Minister has explained why it is not sufficient for the law simply to prosecute people who commit criminal acts of the sort that are alleged—I agree that we have to be very careful here, for sub judice reasons—against members of Palestine Action. The point, if I have understood the Minister correctly—and he will say if I have not—is that there is a vital public need to prevent these people organising and recruiting, and the only way in which the law can do that is to take the action that the Minister is proposing today, which I strongly support.

My Lords, I am a little concerned about how the sides are being laid out in this discussion. I have some serious worries about proscribing Palestine Action and have a lot of sympathy with the regret amendment, but not because I consider Palestine Action to be some idealised, cuddly, heroic campaign for peace. I have no sympathy with its destructive, wanton, often violent and nihilistic assaults on factories, air bases and so on. The individuals deserve criminal prosecution and punishment. God knows, we have enough draconian laws on the statute book to throw the book at them. What we are challenging here is whether the concept of them being proscribed as a terrorist organisation is appropriate, not whether they are nice, peace-loving, wonderful Greenham Common types. That is the wrong way to look at it. In an earlier intervention, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, asked whether these could indeed be terrorist acts. I think that they could well be assessed as acts of terrorism without proscribing a whole organisation. These are my reservations. I am worried about criminalising the vocalising of support for this organisation. Vocalising support for a reprehensible law-breaking protest group is one thing, but once it is proscribed, we are talking about the possibility of prison sentences of up to 14 years. All of this was brilliantly explained legally by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. You could, even if you only say that you support them, end up in prison. The problem we have is that it is true that Palestine Action’s cause and its broader support are very popular —we have heard it here today. I do not mean that it is populist; I mean that many young people support that outlook. I do not. I spend a lot of time at the moment going around arguing with those young people about what I consider to be the growth of casual antisemitism and an intense hatred of Israel that seeps into Jew hatred. I talk a lot about that wherever I go, but it is certainly the case that I am not on the winning side on this one. If you go into universities and sixth forms, many support them. I am worried about the consequences of proscribing this organisation because it can threaten free speech. There are also going to be a lot of people who could be classified as in breach of it. We should note that, for the first time since records began, this week the UK is no longer classified as an open country in the global expression rankings, which is shameful. In case noble Lords think the global expression rankings are some JD Vance-like prejudice or something, it is actually an annual report by Article 19, which noticed that free speech is seriously deteriorating in this country, so I put that warning out. We have to be very careful that this proscription does not have a chilling effect or, even worse, give some credibility to the idea that supporters of Palestine Action are some kind of free speech heroes and martyrs along with, undoubtedly Bobby—what is his name?

Bobby Sands.

No, I do not mean Bobby Sands. That made me laugh. Bob Vylan was where I was going. What I mean is that there are these people, whose views I despise, who, once you start banning them, suddenly develop some kind of heroic free speech status. That is the point I am making. Finally, I am slightly worried about making a mockery of the anti-terror laws and even confusing our definition of what constitutes terrorism. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and others have implied that the definition of terrorism is absolutely clear-cut and that we know what it is in the law. We have had a wide range of controversies from the Government on what Prevent interprets as terrorism and extremism. There has been some confusion. If it was so black and white then recent confusions would not have emerged. My concern here is quite straightforward: we might end up relativising what constitutes terrorism if we put Palestine Action on the same list as the likes of Hamas, ISIS and Hezbollah. It seems that it could create a moral equivalence. It could, unintentionally, confirm a prejudice in western activist circles that the likes of the Houthis and Hamas are legitimate resistance groups, a little bit like those encampments on university campuses, and everybody thinks, “They’re just resisting; we’re resisting”. I always make the point about the butchers and rapists of Hamas. The Jew hatred that goes on in their camps is slightly different from standing around with a flag or going on a demo. If we flatter Hamas and say that it is just like Palestine Action then surely that undermines the very thing that we are trying to do. At the very least I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I do not think that this is something where you can be so certain of yourself that you think, because you are on one side, that something should be banned as terrorism and, because you are on another, something should not be banned. It is much more complicated and we have a responsibility to acknowledge that.

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, made a number of important points. I accept much of her analysis, but come to a different conclusion on proscribing Palestine Action. I strongly endorse the statement made by the Minister today and the Government’s action. It is something that I called for last year in my review Protecting our Democracy from Coercion, in my then role as the Government’s independent adviser on political violence and disruption.

17:15:00

Nevertheless, a number of important points have been raised about the legal framework by noble Lords who take different views on the wisdom of proscribing Palestine Action at the moment. The essential case against Palestine Action that was read out—the level of violence and systematic criminal damage of property in the name of the cause—clearly meets the definition of terrorism in the 2000 Act. Violence has been associated with a number of those acts; that and their targeting of national infrastructure and our means to defend ourselves clearly meet the definition.

Actually, it poses for me a question in public policy terms about why it has taken so long to place restrictions on this organisation. I accept that there is a difficult judgment to make on when an organisation that is carrying out acts like this crosses the terrorism threshold for which—as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and others pointed out—the severity of sanctions is particularly high. However, it is a nonsense that an organisation that has avowedly put as its purpose criminal damage against defence companies and a number of other only vaguely associated organisations has been able to operate freely for as long as it has. It has been recruiting, raising money and advertising, and it sometimes live-streams its crimes as they happen.

I would like the Minister to take away another of the recommendations from my review. There is a gap in the law, at the moment, such that we ought to be able to place a restriction on an organisation that is committing systematic criminality in the name of a cause without necessarily branding it terrorist. A criminal protest proscription has criminal sanctions to it, but would not get the full suite of terrorism powers, nor would we end up branding young people who will probably be committing terrorist acts by the weekend. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues have been in touch with the Metropolitan Police about its strategy to deal with that eventuality, assuming that this goes through soon.

My final point is actually a note to my former colleagues in the Labour movement. I like and respect the noble Lord, Lord Hain, probably more than he likes and respects me—but he does not need to intervene to answer that. I certainly have enormous respect for the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, but I say, probably to her in particular, that the Labour movement has to think more about working people here. They have been systematically targeted and deeply intimidated in defence factories. At times, they have been violently injured. It is totally unacceptable for the Labour movement to say that that is okay because it is for a cause.

If this had been a far-right group, or maybe an anti-abortion group that decided to target hospitals—breaking into them and intimidating nurses—we would not be saying, “You’ve got to give people the right to express themselves in the name of their cause”. We are all guilty, me included, of seeing things differently depending on how we feel about the basic cause but, as legislators—as those in a position of privilege in this House—we have to do everything that we can to put our underlying sympathies for any particular cause to one side and to treat all causes equally, if the law is broken in this manner.

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Walney, on a brilliant speech. Listening to the threshold and the conditions the Minister set out, it is absolutely clear that Palestine Action satisfies those three conditions. I have a lot of respect for the noble Lord, Lord Hain. I spent a lot of time on protests about apartheid and I pay tribute to his leadership of that movement, but when he was leading that movement, he was not getting an armoured van, driving it into factories, intimidating workers and attacking them with sledgehammers. It is very different. The attack on the RAF planes has nothing to do with campaigning against Israel. Since its inception, Palestine Action has caused tens of millions of pounds-worth of damage. It has cost the Government and firms making equipment for the British military, our Armed Forces who protect us all, as much as £55 million. We should take that very seriously. In response to something the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, said about community cohesion, I say that this is an organisation that singles out and attacks Jewish-owned businesses in London and Manchester. The local MP in Manchester said that the attack there saw antisemitic graffiti targeted towards the Jewish owners of the building and the Jewish businesses that use it. That has nothing to do with standing up for the Palestinians. People on the left in here would never justify or dismiss racist violence if it was directed at any other group.

I am conscious of time, but specifically on that point, I bore witness to the attack on the Jewish business in north-west London last May. It reverberated throughout the entire community. I have never seen anything like the glass that was smashed and the paint that was daubed. It dominated the area for a whole weekend because it could not be cleared up because it took place over the weekend. In the interest of community cohesion, I point to that as a very strong example, coupled with all the other points people have made about why this is a violent organisation and how it directly intimidates and attacks people. Its impact goes far wider than what we are discussing today.

I pay tribute to the work the noble Baroness has done over many years, at immense personal cost, in fighting antisemitism. She is completely right about this. I know the owners of that building. I went to see it afterwards. I know how deeply shocked they and other Jewish residents in that area were after that attack. I want to pick up on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, about the defence and security relationship between Britain and Israel, which is of huge importance to our national interest. People who argue for boycotts or banning defence exports to Israel need to be careful about this, because the RAF would not be able to get its planes off the ground without Israeli technology. British soldiers would have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan without Israeli defence equipment. Israeli intelligence has prevented terror attacks here in the UK. We have to be careful when people suggest undermining that relationship. People who argue for that would have a great deal of difficulty explaining to the public why they want to put our Armed Forces at risk because they are so obsessed with this. There are 200 land-based conflicts in the world and the only one that people seem to care about is the one involving Israel. We have to ask ourselves why that country is singled out and held to standards that never apply to any other country. The final point I want to make about Palestine Action is this: if the only country you campaign against, the only country you think should be abolished, or the only country you think should never have been established in the first place just happens to be the only Jewish one, do not tell me that you are not a bunch of antisemites.

My Lords, I am aware of the time and I will be very brief. It will not surprise your Lordships’ House that I rise to offer the strongest possible support to my noble friend. Responding to the noble Lord who just spoke, I note that I have been strongly campaigning against arms sales to Saudi Arabia, and many other places, for a very long time. I wanted to make three points, drawing some things in this debate together. One is the point about social cohesion made powerfully by the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Grady and Lady Smith of Llanfaes. Many young people—hundreds of thousands of people—show social media support. This is an issue where we are, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, powerfully pointed out, potentially criminalising and calling terrorists an enormous number of people who are absolutely horrified, in their gut, about what is happening in Gaza. We have to think about the impact on our society of what the Government are choosing to do. My second point is that we have heard some powerful and important points about process. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, about the ISC not having been briefed and some astonishment about that. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, pointed out that the Explanatory Memorandum simply did not set out clearly the impact of what the Government are doing, and that surely is a real problem of process. I turn to my third point. I thank the House collectively —a number of people, including the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—for acknowledging that my noble friend has done a difficult thing. It is important that people are allowed to set out their case clearly, particularly in starting the debate. So I thank the House for the support that has been shown.

Front Bench!

Forgive me, my Lords; I think I was nodding off. No matter how passionately any of us may feel about the unfolding tragedy in the Middle East, we all remain bound by the law. Activists cannot expect to waltz into a high security Ministry of Defence base and escape without consequences. The Liberal Democrats regard last month’s intrusion at RAF Brize Norton as totally unacceptable. The perpetrators should be prosecuted, taken through the courts and, if proven guilty, punished accordingly. I grew up in Ireland, where terrorism was a very real and constant presence. Our newspapers were filled every day with what terrorists had done in the north—I lived in the south. It was just appalling: kneecapping, murder and bombing. That, to me, is the definition of “terrorism”. I believe that there is a big difference between that and criminal activity. I find anyone who commits violence to be absolutely abhorrent, but I see committing criminal acts and terrorist acts as very different things, and I do not believe that this particular act could be described as a terrorist act. We are being invited not to prosecute criminal activity but to criminalise membership of an organisation. It is regrettable that Ministers put the three SIs together, because two of them are clearly well-proven, whereas the other one is, in my opinion, open to doubt. I want to be clear that we are definitely in favour of two of them, and we have no problem with that whatever. But it is not possible to say that, if a vote comes, we will vote for two of them and not for the other one. When Parliament granted the Home Secretary the extraordinary power to ban organisations, it did so on the condition that such action be reserved for the most extreme circumstances when proportionality could be plainly demonstrated. It is our responsibility to question whether the use of these powers is fair, just and proportionate. That question of proportionality should be at the forefront of our minds today. I do not believe that the test of proportionality has been met. If this proscription proceeds, it will be the first time that a direct action group is outlawed primarily for damaging property. Although the Terrorism Act 2000 makes it clear that serious damage to property can meet the legal threshold for terrorism, questions about proportionality remain unanswered.

17:30:00

Which of the three tests that the noble Lord outlined for something to qualify as an act of terrorism has not been met by this organisation in the example that I gave?

It is proportionality that I am concerned about. Proscription, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, rightly pointed out, would mean that merely expressing approval for Palestine Action, even via an ill-judged retweet, could carry a 14-year prison sentence. I was not particularly convinced by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, although he is a very long-standing friend, because if the CPS will not prosecute because it is clearly not the right thing to do, why is it there?

I am sorry but I cannot let that pass. Every day the police prosecute people for theft. The maximum sentence for theft was seven years—I am not sure whether it still is. Practically nobody gets seven years; most people get a non-custodial sentence. The assumption that everybody prosecuted will be locked up for years and years is a misleading premise for this debate.

I am not trying to mislead anyone; the noble Lord knows better than that. If it can happen, I do not think it is right. It is as simple as that. That brings me to the security breach. Barely three weeks after the Strategic Defence Review urged stronger protection for RAF logistics bases, an activist group breached the security at Brize Norton. Can the Minister say in winding up what consequences there have been for those in charge of security at the base? Was site security managed by the RAF or contracted out? Can he give the House a categorical assurance that whatever mistakes enabled this breach will not be repeated? There is also the question of workability. Hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens have marched peacefully for a ceasefire and an arms export ban on Israel, a position that opinion polls say now commands majority support. Since this position is shared by Palestine Action, a member of the public promoting these views could be interpreted under this law as supporting the group. I would welcome clarity from the Minister on this, as it has understandably left many concerned and a bit confused. We should be concerned that, while we debate the order, innocent Palestinians continue to die in their hundreds. The Government’s principal diplomatic energy should be directed at securing a durable peace: a plan for Gaza which excludes Hamas, pressure on Prime Minister Netanyahu to halt the de facto annexation of the West Bank and, without further delay, formal recognition of a Palestinian state by the United Kingdom. That is the Liberal Democrat position. For the sake of our security, credibility and liberties, I ask the Minister to focus on pursuing these aims instead.

My Lords, I support the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025, which rightly moves to proscribe the group Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation under UK law. The right to protest peacefully is a fundamental cornerstone of our democracy, as many noble Lords have expressed here this afternoon. It is a right that generations have fought to protect, but there is, and must be, a clear line between legitimate protest and violent coercion and wanton damage. Palestine Action has crossed that line repeatedly and deliberately, as its actions at RAF Brize Norton last month, which we have heard about, made absolutely clear. This is not a question of silencing dissent, nor of suppressing pro-Palestinian voices; it is a move to uphold the rule of law and our true freedoms. It is intended to protect the public from targeted, dangerous and ideologically motivated criminal acts. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has tabled an amendment to regret the proscription of Palestine Action. She set out that she is concerned that civil disobedience is being misinterpreted. We on this side are clear that Palestine Action’s actions do in fact cross a line. Civil disobedience is one thing, but breaking into, attacking and seriously damaging our national defence infrastructure is another, as was made clear by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. If the noble Baroness does not want to take my word for it, maybe she will listen to the words of the group itself, previously cited by the Minister. Palestine Action’s own training materials have stated that it is “not a non-violent organisation”. The group has a footprint in all 45 policing regions in the UK and has pledged to escalate its campaign. A group that openly admits its intention to be violent cannot be disregarded as a threat in the way that the noble Baroness proposed. A group that advances its views through violence is itself a direct threat to the integrity of free speech in our country. It is clear that Palestine Action’s entire modus operandi is to use direct, violent action in pursuit of political ends. Its members do not operate through petitions, campaigns or democratic engagement; they operate through sabotage, criminal damage and threats. They have repeatedly targeted companies involved in the UK defence sector, often without regard for legality. They do so with the explicit intention of coercing change through unlawful means. The group was established on 30 July 2020, when activists broke into and vandalised the interior of the UK headquarters of Elbit Systems in London. From the very beginning, members of this group have been intent on causing damage and have acted to assert their views through criminal violence. Is that not the rightful definition of a terrorist organisation? Time and time again, Palestine Action’s activities have endangered third parties. They have vandalised property, occupied buildings and attacked not only private companies but critical components of our national defence. Its tactics are both calculated and militant. When a group pursues its aims, not through democratic discourse, but through organised campaigns of destruction and violence, and strives to terrorise legitimate businesses and opinion-formers, its acts are those of terrorism as defined by the law. This order does not criminalise views; it outlaws those who use terror and violence to force their views on others. To fail to act would send a message that violent extremism would be tolerated if it is dressed up as enthusiastic activism. We cannot allow such ambiguity. We must be consistent. This country has proscribed far-right groups that promote violence under the banner of nationalism; it did so in the 1930s against the Blackshirts. We cannot allow such abhorrent methods today. We must apply the same standard to all who use violence and intimidation and who seek to advance political causes by criminal means against law-abiding members of society. This proscription does not ban support for Palestinian rights or peaceful demonstrations; it is a necessary step to uphold public safety and the democratic rule of law. There are other voices lawfully making the case for Palestine and Palestinians; Palestine Action is not one of them. We support this order in its entirety because we believe in protecting the public, defending our democracy and drawing a firm line against those who would use violence to impose their political will. We therefore welcome the Government bringing this order and are pleased to support it.

My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions to what has been a thorough and testing debate. Having introduced the order on behalf of the Government, it is my responsibility to respond to the points that have been made today. All three organisations in the order before us—this is a very important point for Members to remember—are subject to the same tests under the 2000 Act that this House and the House of Commons passed and put in place for 25 years, along with, to date, around 80 proscription orders that were passed under similar tests. This debate is not about whether you support the rights of the Palestinian people to a homeland, whether you are appalled at the actions of the Israeli Government, or whether you think the Israeli Government are acting fairly and proportionately following the Hamas kidnappings and murders. This is not about that issue. It is not, dare I say it, about the right to protest. I served with my noble friend Lord Hain in Northern Ireland for two years, and I have some admiration for the way that he has approached some of the issues that I shared. I said at the outset that I have been carried out of a building for protesting the apartheid regime, I protested against the fascist regime in Chile and I have been on a picket line during the miners’ strike. I have been involved in protests across my political life that have been fair and open, but not those that have not led to harassment, intimidation, violence and criminal damage. Noble Lords in this debate have, dare I say it, fallen into two camps—with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, who asked legitimate questions that I will return to. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, the noble Lords, Lord Harper, Lord Beamish, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, Lord Austin of Dudley, Lord Turnberg, Lord Carlile, Lord Walney and Lord Pannick, and the Official Opposition have all, in one way or another, supported the approach that the Government have taken. From this Front Bench, I recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has tabled an important amendment that has generated this debate—which is an important part of the democracy that I believe we should stand up for. She has had support from my noble friends Lord Hain and Lady O’Grady, the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, Lady Fox of Buckley and Lady Bennett. Again, she has put forward a legitimate point of view, but I want to draw noble Lords back to the essence of this debate. Under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary may proscribe organisations that she believes are concerned with terrorism. There is a clear definition of terrorism in that Act, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, said, has stood the test of time: “‘terrorism’ means the use or threat of action … designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public” and the actions used or threatened must involve “serious violence against a person … serious damage to property … endangers a person’s life … creates a serious risk to … health … or … is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system”. I say again that all three organisations in this order are being judged on their actions as to whether they are committing or participating in acts of terrorism, preparing for terrorism, promoting terrorism or are otherwise concerned with terrorism. If that statutory test is met, factors that the Home Secretary takes into account include the nature and scale of the organisation, the specific threat, the extent of the presence and the need to have support from members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism. The Home Secretary does not sit in 2 Marsham Street and say, “What’s happening today? Should I proscribe these organisations?” There is a decision, which is never taken lightly. That decision has robust processes in place to ensure the evidence is available and is carefully reviewed and considered. The decision to proscribe Palestine Action has been taken with significant considerations, which include technical assessments, deep engagement with the subject matter, experts from across government, policy officials, law enforcement and a proscription advisory group that makes recommendations to the Home Secretary to determine whether that proscription is legitimate.

17:45:00

Then, of course, the Home Secretary and, in this case, my honourable friend Dan Jarvis, the Security Minister, do not just sit there and say, “Oh, yes, fine. We’ve had all these recommendations. Let’s just accept them”. They do what any Government Minister does in any government department in any Government of this country. I can see former Home Office Ministers in the Chamber from His Majesty’s Opposition; they will have done the same process. They will sit down, test, challenge, argue and come to what this Government are giving today: a judgment on the evidence before them. This is not from their own personal prejudices but from the evidence before them.

In these cases, the evidence has meant that, as far as the Government are concerned, all three organisations before us have passed the evidential test, for which the Act sets out the framework and on which the organisations that have assessed that framework have brought forward information. The Home Secretary and my honourable friend have agreed with that judgment and brought this order forward today. Again, this is not because of their view on Palestine, Israel or the right to protest; it is on their view on the evidence presented to them about the criminal damage, the harassment, the injury to individuals and the proven convictions already—without reference, as the noble Lord, Lord Harper, said, to the current case before the courts, about which I make no comment, because it will be determined by the courts in due course. The evidence to date has been that we must take action to protect the public from all three organisations—neo-Nazi and right-wing Russian extremists in two cases and Palestine Action, taking its effort of being, by its own admission, a non-peaceful organisation that approves of violent means.

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, who has made an important test, there are potential consequences following today. I think my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew—as I will call him, having known him for the best part of 30-odd years in both Houses—said that there may be consequences, but it is a matter for the operationally independent police to determine whether a charge is made on something such as a like on a tweet or a retweet, and it is for the Crown Prosecution Service to determine whether there is a case to be made, whether there is a crime and whether to put it to the courts for the jury to determine whether they have acted proportionately in doing that.

The lesson here—and I take the point again from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson—is that we may need to look at the publicity and guidance to differentiate the actions of Palestine Action and the two other organisations that individuals may support from the legislative framework we are talking about. However, it is important that we look at specific incidents on a case-by-case basis. In this case, we must not conflate Palestine Action’s activity with legitimate pro-Palestinian support. I do not think anybody in this House would say that people cannot stand up and say what they want about Palestine, Israel or any other issue. Even with the extreme right-wing Russian organisation today, it is not illegal to stand up and say that Russia is doing the right thing in Ukraine—even though it is not—but it is illegal to take criminal action, intimidation and violence against individuals on the threshold that the Government have brought forward.

My noble friend Lord Beamish and I both served on the Intelligence and Security Committee and helped to produce the Russia report, which relates to part of the order before us today. I take what he says and will convey it back to my honourable friend Dan Jarvis, the Minister for Security, and to the Home Secretary. I want to have a positive relationship with the Intelligence and Security Committee, not least because I see my noble friend most days at breakfast in one part of this building or another. We will continue our discussion in due course, but I think it is important that the ISC, of which I was a member for five years and which my noble friend now chairs, is engaged with the Government on these security matters. I will take back his points and examine the position that he has put to us today.

In summary, this is not a decision that Governments take lightly. It is a government decision, based on legislation and on clear tests. It is designed to protect the public, not to stifle public concern, demonstrations or activity around the causes linked the organisations being proscribed today. It is an evidential test, and we believe that the three organisations have passed that evidential test. I therefore commend this order to the House.

I thank the Minister for his response, and every noble Lord who has spoken in the debate, especially those who have been kind about me. I will just say that I do not normally take interventions because, in my 12 years’ experience of your Lordships’ House, most interventions can be a speech after mine. I just do not see the point in being disrupted all the time—I think it is rude. Admittedly, there were two points of information that I should probably have taken, so I apologise to the noble Lords, Lord Harper and Lord Scriven. This is a regret amendment, and I have heard enough regret from various of your Lordships to want to test the opinion of the House.

1|17:52|16|144|Division on Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb’s amendment|Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb’s amendment disagreed.||0|0

Motion agreed.