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

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

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

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

Let him intervene.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

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—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

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.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

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.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

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.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

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.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

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.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

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.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

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.