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

Lord Harper Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[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—

[Lord Harper (Con)]

Is the noble Baroness prepared to answer questions about—

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harper (Con)]

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.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

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.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

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.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords—

[Lord Harper (Con)]

Of course I will take an intervention.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

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.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

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.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

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.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harper (Con)]

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.