Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism
Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Dan Jarvis(2 days, 1 hour ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis
I will make a bit of progress, which I do not think is unreasonable.
The proscription of those three organisations will reaffirm the UK’s zero-tolerance approach to terrorism, regardless of its form or underlying ideology.
It may be helpful to set out some background to the proscription power. To proscribe an organisation, the Home Secretary must reasonably believe that it is concerned in terrorism. That means that the organisation commits or participates in terrorism, it prepares for terrorism, it promotes or encourages terrorism, or it is otherwise concerned in terrorism. Some 80 terrorist organisations are currently proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000.
Proscription is, rightly, ideologically neutral: it judges an organisation on its actions and the actions 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, and it has stood the test of time and extensive scrutiny since.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
On that point, will the Minister give way?
Dan Jarvis
I will make a little more progress before giving way.
The definition has three limbs. First, the use or threat of action must reach a certain level of seriousness, such as serious violence or serious damage to property. Secondly, the use or threat must be designed to influence a Government or intimidate the public or a section of the public. Thirdly, 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 have upheld the UK’s terrorism definition as effective and fit for purpose, even as the threat from terrorism has evolved.
Dan Jarvis
I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s point about history, and it is entirely reasonable context for him and others to raise, but ultimately this Government must respond to events taking place in the here and now. The Government have to make sometimes difficult decisions about what measures are required to keep the public safe. He is absolutely within his rights to make comparisons with other groups, but as I will explain, fundamentally the Home Secretary has to take a view on whether a legal threshold has been crossed, and if it has, she has to make a judgment on whether she wishes to proceed.
Dan Jarvis
I must make a bit of progress, because I still have some way to go.
Despite some of its rhetoric, the group’s own materials state that it is not non-violent, and that is echoed in the actions of its members, who have committed atrocious attacks. Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary has concluded that Palestine Action is concerned in terrorism and should be proscribed. The House will understand that I am unable to comment on specific intelligence or to go into details about incidents that are sub judice. However, I can provide a summary of the group’s activities, and it is right that I make the position 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 that support Ukraine, NATO, our Five Eyes allies and the UK defence industry. Over time, and most 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.
Mr Carmichael
The Minister has spoken about some of the history of this, but there is more recent history. The last Government introduced the Public Order Act 2023 to deal with Extinction Rebellion. The Home Secretary, who was then on the Opposition Front Bench, listed all the various crimes that could be dealt with. She said then:
“the Government are extending powers that we would normally make available just for serious violence and terrorism to peaceful protest. Police officers themselves have said that this is, ‘a severe restriction on a person’s rights to protest and in reality, is unworkable’.”—[Official Report, 23 May 2022; Vol. 715, c. 63.]
She was right then, and is wrong today, is she not?
Dan Jarvis
I will make a bit of progress, because I hope to answer some of the points that the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] I am about to explain to him that specific recent incidents have informed the decision. I understand why he may not want to listen to that, but I invite him to do so, because the context is very important.