Violence against Women and Girls Strategy
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(6 days, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving the House the chance to discuss this important issue that affects the lives of millions of women and girls across the country. This issue is a stain on our society, and I am sure that Members across the House will support the ambition to halve violence against women and girls. For the same reason, I hope that the Minister can recognise the work undertaken by the previous Government through the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and the related plan, funded by hundreds of millions of pounds, alongside important changes to legislation in areas such as harassment. While it is clear that much more still needs to be done, those were critical steps in the right direction.
Worryingly, according to data from the crime survey for England and Wales, sexual offences, rape, stalking and harassment have all increased by between 5% and 9% under this Labour Government. That has occurred at the same time as the number of police officers has fallen under this Government. It demonstrates that despite the targets that have been set and the undoubted will of the Minister to reduce these life-altering crimes, there remains a significant gap between ambition and results.
We look forward to seeing the full scope of the strategy, which I am sure all Members would have wished to see sooner. I am sure that Members would have preferred to hear it in the House, rather than in the press. Is there a plan to identify and build on the measures in the strategy that are found to be most effective? Given the Government’s cuts to police numbers, what will be done to ensure that police forces have not only assigned individuals and titles, but the resources needed to tackle violence against women and girls head-on?
Matt Vickers
Police numbers are produced in March and September. The last official records show—
Jess Phillips
Okay, I may have to stand corrected, but all I can say is that a huge amount of what is being cited on police numbers is being taken from the previous Government’s figures. In my area, we have not got up to the level of police funding that we had in 2010, so I will not take lectures from the Conservatives, given the hollowing out of the police over their era. [Interruption.] The shadow Minister may not like what he hears.
Brilliant work has been done under a number of people who have held the same position as me, and I can see one of them on the Opposition Front Bench. Throughout the progress of the Bill that became the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, when we were in opposition, I worked very closely with Ministers. I see that the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) is present. I worked incredibly closely with her in opposition to ensure that the Bill was good enough. Not once has any Member on the current Opposition Front Bench sought a meeting with me to discuss anything that they actually want to see in the strategy, but they would be very welcome to do so.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. To prevent any further confusion, I should point out that this is not a debate but a response to an urgent question, and Members do not intervene on the Minister.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for coming to the House to respond to the urgent question. I know that this is an issue that she cares passionately about, and I can sense her frustration about the fact that such an important strategy is to be announced in the House on the last day before the recess, when many Members will not be here to respond and give their feedback. I hope that we will have another opportunity in the new year. I also hope that the strategy will confirm that there will be cross-departmental work, and that a big part of it will relate to where these vulnerable women and girls are to be housed. Did Ministers from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government attend the advisory board meetings, and will housing feature in the new strategy?
Jess Phillips
Ministers from MHCLG are key partners, and housing is a huge part of the issue of, specifically, domestic abuse-related crimes. Today the MHCLG announced refuge funding of £499 million over the next three years, which represents a huge increase on what was previously being offered, as well as an extra £19 million in support of part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Act, which places a statutory duty on local authorities to house victims of domestic abuse.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Violence against women and girls is a stain on society. I know that the Minister shares the passion that we feel about the issue, and I know how much work she has done in this area. However, I want to follow up on some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) that were perhaps not dealt with in as much detail as we might have hoped, given the level of the briefing to the press over the weekend.
To ensure that halving violence against women and girls does not become a broken manifesto promise, how will the Home Secretary and the Minister measure progress, and what consequences will be set if progress is not made quickly enough? With misogynistic content continuing to spread online, how will Ministers ensure that social media companies are upholding their duty to protect children, particularly when figures such as Andrew Tate—described by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who is not in the Chamber, as an “important voice” for men—are so easily accessible?
The Minister seems to be somewhat frustrated about being here today to answer the urgent question, and indeed we all feel frustrated. The Home Secretary gave many of the details of her announcements to the press this weekend. Given the seriousness of the issue, and given that we have been told that the statement will be made on Thursday—the final day before the recess—does the Minister think that this is an appropriate way to conduct government?
Jess Phillips
My hon. Friend shares my passion for this subject, and has done over many years. She is absolutely right: the data shows that nearly half of all teenage relationships between those aged 13 to 17 experience issues of control. What does that mean for both the victim’s group and the perpetrator’s group? As the mother of teenage boys—although one of them is no longer a teenager, because I am getting old—I can say that the idea that we should not support boys in this circumstance has led us to the terrifying statistics that she and I have cited. The strategy will focus very heavily on prevention, because I am sick of just putting bigger, better plasters on scars, rather than trying to stop the scars coming in the first place.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I can see how frustrated the Minister is, and I share her frustration. The Home Affairs Committee stands ready to work constructively with her. I gently say that I can imagine what she would say if she was standing here and I was at the Dispatch Box saying that I will announce the strategy on the last day of term—I do not think she would be terribly happy with me. From talking to organisations that work in the sector, we know that there have been real problems with getting services commissioned because of the uncertainty that the delay has caused. Can she set out what she has been doing as a Minister to reassure commissioners that they can commission services and that the strategy will not block them from doing so, so that these services can continue their great work?
Illegal Migrants: Unknown Whereabouts
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We do not need commentary from a sedentary position. I remind Mr Lowe that we do not accuse other Members of misleading the House, so please refrain from using such terms and please check your language.
Rupert Lowe
Will the Minister now commit to publishing these figures on a regular and transparent basis, or will I have to continue exposing this? Further whistleblowers have already come forward with additional information, and I thank them for that. My warning to the Home Office and to other Departments is this: be very careful about any further misleading statements. There are many decent people in the civil service who will not tolerate it, and I want them all to know that they have a safe and secure channel to release this information publicly through me. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and this festering, rotting mess desperately needs to be disinfected.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Mr Lowe, we spoke about this earlier. We do not accuse each other of misleading and we do not accuse each other of lying. There are different ways of framing such questions—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. If I needed the hon. Member’s help, I would have asked for it.
Mr Lowe, this is a very serious subject. We have to make sure that our language is appropriate and serious. I will now call the Minister, and no doubt you will want to intervene on him, but please keep your language in check.
Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sarah Jones
There are a number of questions we need to think about. The safety advisory groups were set up many years ago and in a different context, so it is right that we look at the way in which police intelligence and information are fed into those groups. That is the topic of the main piece of work that the inspector is doing, which will report by the end of March. The piece of work relating to West Midlands in particular will report by the end of the year.
The Home Secretary has asked officials to look at Louise Casey’s recommendation from 2021 that we signify certain events as “nationally significant” and then perhaps have a different model for how we take them forward. There is also a review going on in the Cabinet Office of the guidance for safety advisory groups. All those factors need to feed in together. Clearly, we need to look at whether we can improve the structures that exist for very large significant events—in this case globally significant.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) for securing this critical urgent question.
It is important not to forget the context of this decision. It came only weeks after the tragic events of the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation attack. After the attack, the Prime Minister spoke to the Jewish people. He said that he would do everything in his power to guarantee them the security that they deserve. Yet when it came to a football club predominantly supported by Jewish people, they were suddenly deemed a risk to public safety. That is not just inconsistent but an insult to a community still reeling from a violent antisemitic attack. At a moment when Jewish families needed reassurance, this decision sent entirely the wrong message. It undermined confidence, contradicted the Prime Minister’s own promise and fell short of the duty we owe to the Jewish people to keep them safe.
Why was this decision taken? When the Minister addressed the House a couple of weeks ago, she said that the shadow Home Secretary was “jumping the gun a bit” in saying that certain pieces of intelligence were “just made up”. We now know that not only did imaginary matches somehow enter the intelligence picture, but officers giving evidence to Parliament were inaccurate about their dealings with the local Jewish community. That seriously undermines the integrity of this House and the vital work that police forces do in securing accurate intelligence.
The Government have asked HMICFRS to review the intelligence, but will the Minister go further and ensure that the details are made public? We need full transparency and more accurate accounts than we have seen so far, so that proper accountability can finally take place.
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. She might not be the MP directly in the area but, as the Member for Erdington, she has a very close interest in this matter. The safety advisory group as constructed at the moment has a couple of councillors on it, so there was representation, but is that the right mix? This speaks to the wider question of whether, if there are issues of national significance, we need a different lens through which to view them. In answer to her question: yes, I will do all I can to ensure that we get to the bottom of what happened and learn the lessons in the appropriate way.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
This has been a sorry saga from the very beginning. First, we were told that the fans had to be banned for safety reasons. Intelligence reports, we were told, said that Maccabi Tel Aviv fans were highly organised, skilled fighters with the serious desire and will to fight with police and opposing groups. That was false. Last week, the West Midlands assistant chief constable told MPs that the Jewish community in the local area supported the ban. This has now been found to be false, too, and he has rightly apologised. There are serious questions to be answered about West Midlands police’s handling of this decision, so will the Minister commit to support the setting up of any independent inquiries that are needed to get to the bottom this, in excess of what is already going on, if the answers are not found, so that anyone who is responsible can be held to account?
Finally, with antisemitic incidents remaining at record highs in this country, the Government must reassure the Jewish community of its safety. Ministers assured me last month that the community cohesion strategy would be published when it was ready. Can they assure us that the Jewish community remains part of that process, and can they give us a concrete timeline for the strategy’s publication?
Sarah Jones
The Cabinet Office is updating the guidance on safety advisory groups and it is looking at exactly those kinds of issues. There is a wider point about the need to reference, account for and minute decisions when they are made and to record how they are made. We do that in government and we do it for a reason. It is because when we are questioned about our decisions, we need to have access to the right information about what was said, when and to whom. That is a wider question that I definitely take away from this episode.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I would be grateful if the Minister could share any correspondence she has with the Committee because we are keen to get full transparency on this issue.
Does the Minister share my incredulity that a decision that was so sensitive appears to have been taken on the basis of a single unminuted Zoom call between a West Midlands police officer and officers from Amsterdam, and that the exercise in social media scraping led the police to believe that a match that had never taken place could be cited in the evidence for the decision to ban the away fans?
Sarah Jones
Of course, the mistakes that have clearly been made played out in the evidence to the right hon. Member’s Select Committee. The mistake about that particular match does seem to be alarming, as does the subsequent apology.
On access to the intelligence and what was said and when, I know that the right hon. Member will find this frustrating, but I repeat that I want HMICFRS to go through its proper process and to come to a conclusion. It would not be right for me to base my conclusion on the evidence I have before me. It is absolutely right that HMICFRS looks at this matter thoroughly and comes back to us, and we will take whatever action is required afterwards.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her answers and her evidence at the Select Committee last week. It is shocking and deeply concerning that evidence from senior police officers at a Select Committee can fall apart within a week. This was a highly sensitive fixture, and this decision has had a significant impact on the Jewish community in the context of rising antisemitism. Policing in this country depends on the principle of consent and the idea that all communities are treated fairly and equally. I know that the Minister does not want to prejudge the outcomes of this specific case, but can she tell us her thoughts on the impact that this whole issue is having on the principle of policing by consent and on different communities in the country?
Sarah Jones
As far as I am aware, UEFA was not in the SAG meeting. Of course, there would have been conversations with Villa, which ultimately had to make the decisions. It is a complicated decision-making process, as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) said. The SAG sits to consider advice. The police give their evidence and opinion. The right hon. Member was right to say that, on the whole, the SAG will take the police advice, but there are other views in the room. It is then for the local authority to decide whether to allow the event to have the correct licence, and for Villa, in this case, to decide what that means and whether to allow fans to come. It is quite a complex picture. UEFA’s oversight of the whole league is important, but the decision about whether the event should go ahead was taken locally. We are trying to get to the heart of whether that is the right model for events of such national significance, or whether we should have a different model.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
This really is a catalogue of disaster, and it raises a range of issues, some of which the Committee will consider when we kick off our inquiry into major events tomorrow. In the previous Parliament, the Committee looked at the safety of sporting events and concluded that safety advisory groups have, at best, a fairly dubious record on seeking out and considering the necessary perspectives to inform better decision making. May I invite the Minister to look at our recommendations from a couple of years ago on amending the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 so that police and safety advisory groups have no choice but to engage properly from the outset on such cases?
When considering the competence of the West Midlands chief constable, might the Minister start by asking him to respond to his correspondence? The Select Committee wrote to him about the ban on Maccabi Tel Aviv fans, but we still have not received a response.
Injury in Service Award
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Tom Morrison to speak for around 15 minutes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. As the debate is oversubscribed, Back-Bench speeches are limited to four minutes.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) for securing this excellent debate.
I want to seek the Minister’s help with the case of my Witney constituent, Bill Maddocks. Bill was an on-call firefighter at Witney for 22 years and contracted covid at work, while seconded on a whole-time contract to assist the ambulance service during the pandemic. This became long covid and, as a result, he was retired from the fire service due to ill health. During this process, he was assured by senior managers that a pension equivalent to a whole-time firefighter would be his, and he was independently medically assessed as having a tier 1 level and 100% disability, entitling him to a compensation pension equivalent to a whole-time firefighter wage.
There has been a long-standing dispute about his disablement and the apportionment. Even though it was independently assessed and agreed by Oxfordshire fire and rescue service as legally binding, the amount awarded was equivalent only to on-call pay rather than the full-time wage. As a result, the Pensions Ombudsman became involved, as well as the Fire Brigades Union. There has continued to be a Byzantine maze and the Pensions Ombudsman has walked away saying that the case lies outside its brief. Four years on, Bill remains incredibly debilitated and suffering deeply, supported wonderfully by his wife, Nikki. I would like your help in finding a way through this situation monetarily, but the man also deserves an award, exactly as we have named here today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I was going to correct the hon. Member’s use of the word “your”, but I did not want to interrupt his flow. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Mr Forster
My hon. Friend is completely right. Being injured in the line of duty needs to be about physical and mental health, and we have heard many examples of that so far. Debbie reminded us that what might be five minutes on the news becomes a story that affects an individual for the rest of their life.
Let me go back to Tom Curry. He left Sussex police in 1989 because of the serious injuries he received while on the job. He has talked about being only a few weeks away from receiving his long-service medal before he was injured, and now he has nothing to show. The example I have from my constituency in my area of Surrey is that of PC Geoff Newham, from Surrey police. He was named as the winner of an award from the Police Federation back in 2020. He was an outstanding police officer and a member of the Surrey roads policing unit, but he was involved in a collision during a pursuit in 2018 that left him with serious back injuries that prevented him from being able to do his previous job.
Despite that injury, Geoff’s tenacity and positive attitude saw him utilise his first-class criminal intelligence skills and experience to support colleagues, allowing them to target and disrupt a number of high-level organised crime units in Surrey, go after a number of county lines gangs and help to lock up numerous offenders. I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but that deserves to be rewarded.
I have been moved by stories from colleagues across the Chamber. Over several years, whether it be in 2018 or 2022, Parliament has increased sentences for criminals who have targeted our emergency services. If we are increasing their sentences, we should be able to reward and recognise emergency workers at the same time. For all those reasons and more, I support the creation of an official injury on duty award scheme, which would provide the recognition and dignity that those people deserve.
I applaud my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) for bringing this debate to the House and for his work on this issue. I am sure that Jane Notley, with her distinctive pink walking sticks, would be really proud to have him as her MP.
The Home Office has said that it is considering proposals to recognise emergency service personnel injured in the line of duty. It is time for this House to make those proposals reality. I hope the Minister will confirm that today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)
I begin by adding my voice to what I consider to be the prevailing sentiment emerging from today’s discussion, which is that our police officers, firefighters, paramedics and other emergency service personnel are the very best of us. We owe them a massive debt of thanks for the work they do to keep us safe, and for always answering the call when we need help.
As a Home Office Minister, I am responding to this debate on behalf of the Government, but as the son of a career police officer and having worked in law enforcement myself, I have listened to today’s discussion with especially keen interest. Every day that my dad went to work, we worried, and I know that the same is true for all the families in the Gallery and the family of every officer who has served. Before this debate, I had a quick chat with my dad and asked whether he had sustained any injuries. He told me that only his ego had been injured, when he was stuck in a lift with nine other overweight officers and they had to call the fire brigade to get them out. That did make the papers—the headline was “Podgy PCs in a jam”.
On a more serious note, a lot of the points that have been raised resonate with me personally, and it is in that spirit that I express my sincere gratitude to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) for securing the debate.
As was evident from the knowledge and passion with which the hon. Member spoke, this is an issue about which he feels strongly, as do other Members who contributed, to whom I am also thankful. Tom Curry sounds very much like the sort of man I would like to meet—a good bloke and obviously a fantastic campaigner.
A number of specific cases have been cited in the course of discussions, all of them deeply moving, and I will go through some of them. The hon. Member talked about a number of extremely emotional incidents that have happened in Manchester, including two incidents of leg-crushing by vehicles. The fear that must have been felt by those officers is unspeakable. Tom Curry, who I have already mentioned, is one of your constituents, I believe. He started the campaign, and I thank him for that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Minister, you were doing so well, but you are using, “You” or “your” and you should be speaking through the Chair.
Mike Tapp
My apologies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) mentioned Sue Mitchell, who in November 1984 was also subject to ramming by car. She actually managed to commit an arrest, which shows immense bravery on the ground. The hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) talked about Robert Gifford, who served with the British Transport police and witnessed the Ladbroke Grove train crash, which must have been harrowing in many ways. The hon. Member mentioned another constituent, who was beaten by thugs. That demonstrates the challenges our officers experience every day out there on the ground.
The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) spoke about Ian, who served for 30 years in Thames Valley police, and I thank him for his service. The hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) talked about Andrew Barr, who served with the Met police for 16 years, as well as with search and rescue. Service is often in the blood of those who serve with the police force, and that is why they often volunteer in other ways. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) talked about air crash injuries and Councillor Coles, who rightly praises the fire brigade. As with the police, every day while we are in this place, the fire brigade officers literally run towards danger, and I thank them.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) made a really good point about high-profile cases that the press pick up on, when we all send out to the country our thanks to the police, but we must remember that the unnamed do not get that from the media. Routine policing can become dangerous at any moment. While we are safe in here, the police are out there on the streets putting their lives at risk.
The hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) spoke about Bill Maddocks, a firefighter. It sounds like an extremely complex case, so I will not comment on that at this moment. If the hon. Member will write to me and the Minister for Policing and Crime, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), we can get into the detail.
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) gave a considered statement, which I thank him for, and mentioned PC Geoff Newham, who was involved in a crash and was injured. After his injury, his trying to solve complex issues, such as county lines, demonstrates the dedication to service that so many in our police forces and emergency services have. I thank him very much for that.
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) for his considered approach. He mentioned Elsie Galt, to whom I send my thanks, who suffered from a road traffic accident.
There are clearly physical effects that can have significant or, in the most serious examples, life-changing consequences. Then there is the emotional and psychological impact, which, again, can last for years or even a lifetime. We must always remember that the impact of such incidents is felt not only by the individuals themselves, but by their loved ones, their colleagues and their families. When dedicated public servants suffer serious injuries in the course of their duties, it is of course incumbent on us as a state and a society to wrap our arms around them and ensure that they are given all the support they need.
I turn to the specific focus of the debate. I will summarise the Government’s position, but I will do so with full recognition that I am a relative latecomer to this debate, as has been set out by others in a very long-running discussion. I commit to take any outstanding questions away, including on the case that the hon. Member for Cheadle raised. The first point to make is that the Home Office is well aware of the proposal under discussion. Senior officials have spoken many times to leaders of the campaign; indeed, the previous Minister for Policing met a number of them to hear their thoughts on this important matter.
My understanding of the situation is that work continues to identify whether a medal is the best method of recognising emergency services workers who are injured as a result of their duties, and whether it is viable. I realise that the hon. Member for Cheadle and other Members in favour of his proposal would wish me to go further and make a commitment. Respectfully, and with full recognition of the importance of the issue in question, I am afraid I cannot do so today. What I can say is that when any decision is made, it will be communicated to all interested parties, including those in the Gallery today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before Sir Julian Lewis makes his intervention and the Minister responds, I remind the House that “you” and “your” are not permitted. Let us stay focused.
Sir Julian Lewis
I have listened carefully to the whole debate, and I thoroughly support the proposal. From the Minister’s summing up, it sounds as if the decision is more in the hands of civil servants than in those of Ministers. May I gently point out to him that civil servants are never remiss when it comes to awarding themselves all sorts of decorations and recognition? Here, it is more a question that the feeling of the House has made itself heard, and it really ought to be conveyed to those people to whom this task appears to have been delegated that they ought to do what they have been told by the elected representatives of the people of this country.
Huntingdon Train Attack
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the horrific events that took place on the east coast main line on Saturday evening. I am sure that I speak for everyone in this House when I say that my thoughts today are first and foremost with the victims, their families and their friends, and all those who experienced this terrifying attack.
My deepest thanks go to the emergency services: the British Transport police, Cambridgeshire police, Cambridgeshire fire and rescue service, and the East of England ambulance service. The speed of their response, as well as their skill and professionalism, was exemplary.
I also pay tribute to the breathtaking bravery of those on the train itself, including the heroic acts of the passengers and train crew who intercepted the attacker. I draw particular attention to one member of the onboard crew who ran towards danger, confronting the attacker for a sustained period of time, and stopped his advance through the train. He put himself in harm’s way, suffered grievous injuries as a result, and remains in hospital today in a critical but stable condition. On Saturday, he went to work to do his job—today, he is a hero and forever will be. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
There is now a live investigation into what happened on Saturday night and the events that led up to it. I am therefore limited in what I can say today without putting a successful prosecution at risk. I am sure that all here agree there must be one priority right now: bringing the person who committed this horrific crime to justice. However, I will share what facts I can.
At 7.42 pm on Saturday evening, police were contacted about an incident on a train travelling from Doncaster to London, with reports of several stabbings onboard. The quick thinking of the driver saw the train diverted to Huntingdon station. Within eight minutes of the first 999 call, police had boarded the train and brought the attack to an end. Ten people were taken to hospital by the ambulance services, eight of whom had life-threatening injuries, and a further individual later self-presented at the hospital. Three have now been discharged, while eight remain in hospital. I know that everyone in this House wishes them the swiftest and fullest recoveries possible, and I would like to thank the staff at Cambridge University hospitals NHS foundation trust for their lifesaving care.
I can confirm, as was reported over the weekend, that Operation Plato, the national police identifier for a terrorist attack, was declared; however, it was rescinded once the incident had been contained. The British Transport police remains the lead force in this investigation. It stated yesterday that while Counter Terrorism Policing was initially involved, it has found “nothing to suggest” this was “a terrorist incident”.
At the scene, the police made two arrests. Since then, one man has been released who we now know was not involved. As of this morning, the other—one Anthony Williams—has been charged. In relation to the events in Huntingdon, he has been charged with 10 counts of attempted murder, one count of possession of a knife, and one of actual bodily harm. He has also been charged with a further count of attempted murder and possession of a bladed article in relation to events on a docklands light railway train in the early hours of Saturday morning, at London’s Pontoon Dock. Cambridgeshire police has, in the last few hours, reported additional earlier sightings and possible further offences. As is standard practice in these cases, it has now referred itself to the Independent Office for Police Conduct for independent scrutiny of its handling of these reports.
For now, there is little I can say about this man and his past, beyond confirming that he is a British national and was born in this country, and that he was not known to the security services, Counter Terrorism Policing or Prevent. I know that this House, and the public, will have many unanswered questions today about who this attacker was and about the events that led up to the attack. Those questions will be answered, but it will take time—the police and prosecutors must be allowed to do their work.
Since Saturday’s attack, the British Transport police has increased its presence at key points in the transport network. It should be noted, however, that its operational assessment of the risk posed on our trains has not changed, as this was an isolated attack.
This was also, of course, a knife crime. This Government are committed to halving knife crime within a decade, and progress has been made this year. We have taken 60,000 knives off our streets, banned zombie knives and ninja swords and seen a 5% fall in all knife crimes, including an 18% reduction in homicides by knife.
I know that ideas have already been suggested as to how policing should change in response to this event and, once the facts are known, we must examine what more might have been done to stop this horrific attack ever occurring and whether there are measures we must now take to better protect the public on our streets and on our trains. However, that must be done when all the facts are available to us.
The thoughts of the whole House today are with the victims of this horrific crime, their families and friends, and all affected by what happened on Saturday night. The sickening act of the man who committed this crime was the very worst of humanity, but the actions of those who responded and who ran towards danger to save the lives of people they did not know were the very best of us. I know that we all share in paying tribute to their extraordinary bravery today. I commend this statement to the House.
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the shadow Home Secretary for his remarks, in particular his opening remarks; I know that the bravery of all those who faced this attack on Saturday has unanimous support across the House, and I thank him for the spirit in which he reflected that.
As I said in my statement, the events in Peterborough are now the subject of an IOPC investigation. It is important that I do not say anything that seeks to get ahead of that, but I am sure all those questions will be answered in the fullness of time. It is standard practice where there has been contact with police in the run-up to an event like this that those matters are referred to the IOPC to investigate and consider.
The shadow Home Secretary will know that I also cannot say anything that relates to the suspect who has been charged and any prior history, or indeed mental health issues. They would be facts that are material to any future court proceedings, so it would be inappropriate for me, or indeed anybody else in this House, to comment or speculate on those matters today. I would ask that Mr Speaker’s words at the opening of the statement be remembered as questions are posed today.
I agree with the shadow Home Secretary that knife crime is far too high. This Government are impatient to do everything we can to eliminate knife crime. It is why we have set ourselves an ambitious target. We are pleased to have made some progress, though I agree that there is much more to be done. Instead of playing politics across the House, I hope that where there is consensus we are all able to work together to bring down the scourge of knife crime in our country. As I say, the numbers have gone in a positive direction. I hope the shadow Home Secretary will welcome that and work with us as we seek to make more progress.
The shadow Home Secretary referred to sentencing. I have to say that it is disappointing when Conservative Members do not reckon with the scale of the crisis in our prison system. This Government inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse, and it has meant difficult decisions ever since we entered office in order to prevent the country from running out of prison places entirely. This Government have deported more foreign national offenders since entering office than the previous Government did.
Despite deporting record numbers of foreign national offenders, the scale of the crisis in the prison system means that there are still more prisoners coming into the system than there have been places. It is important that the sentencing reforms are seen in that context. The majority of those who have been in possession of a knife and used it in a threatening manner do attract reasonably lengthy prison sentences. When we know more about the circumstances of this particular case, we will know if there are other lessons for us to draw and other areas of policy for us to consider.
The shadow Home Secretary referenced stop and search, and I think—I hope that I am not putting too much of a spin on his remarks—lamented issues about disproportionality. I gently remind him that it was a former Tory Home Secretary in the 2010 to 2015 Parliament who first started speaking about the disproportionate use of stop-and-search powers and changed the rules to reflect the disproportionate use of that power. That was the record of the previous Government. I hope he will recognise that the police already have the power to use stop and search indiscriminately, where the intelligence suggests that that is required. That is an operational decision for police chiefs. Of course, the decision as to whether to stop and search someone, when there are reasonable grounds and suspicion, is an individual operational decision for police officers. This is a well used and well understood power. It is an important power in our arsenal for tackling criminality, and the Government fully support its lawful use.
The Government will soon consult on a new legal framework to underpin the use of live facial recognition. The shadow Home Secretary will know that when his party was in power, that was left to individual police forces. I believe that South Wales and the Met were the first to roll it out, and they faced lots of legal challenges as a result thereof. The Government then did not change their policy, but this Government will consult on a legal framework so that all police forces across the country can use live facial recognition technology, confident that they will not find themselves defending those decisions in courts in the future. I have also supported the roll-out of 10 specific live facial recognition units across the country, and we will look to do more in the coming months.
In relation to scans for knives, there is much more that we can do to use new and emerging technology to help us tackle this type of criminality. I am happy to write to the shadow Home Secretary about our current plans, but I will set out more on our broader position in the coming weeks.
Knife crime is a terrible crime that claims far too many lives in our country. It is important that we keep doing everything we can to bear down on the damage that it causes and to provide pathways for those who get caught up in the carrying of knives. That is an important bit of policy that we will continue to work on. However, in relation to the attack that we are primarily talking about, I urge the House to wait until more of the facts are known before drawing broader policy conclusions.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for all her remarks and the Secretary of State for Transport, who is also in her place, for her comments in the media this morning. I share, as all hon. Members of the House do, their concern for the victims and their families and the recognition of the heroism of so many in the tragedy on Saturday.
On behalf of my colleagues on the Transport Committee, I pay particular tribute to all the staff of Avanti West Coast and Network Rail, who responded so quickly, and in particular to the train driver who reacted so promptly to get the train to Huntingdon in order that the emergency services could meet it and the on-board staff member who is in hospital after protecting passengers.
I know that people may be nervous of travelling by train now. I thank the Government and the police services for their work to ensure additional police presence at rail stations, as I saw at Waterloo on my way here earlier. As the Home Secretary said, British Transport police has said that its operational assessment of the risk posed on our trains has not changed, given that this was an isolated attack, so will she assure me that any long-term changes to security on our rail services will be considered very carefully once the full facts of this incident are known and that there will not be a rush into changes without considering potential downsides that may impact on the ease of travel by train?
Shabana Mahmood
It is always about balance between ease of travel for millions of people every single day and making sure that people are safe, and of course the Transport Secretary and the rest of the Government will ensure that any arrangements—whether we remain with the current arrangements or make any changes—always strike the right balance. That is the most important thing. For now, based on our current understanding of this attack, the risk assessment has not changed, and although we are providing more reassurance to people so that they feel safe getting on trains in the aftermath of this attack, there are no proposals to go further at this point. We will of course review that once more when the facts are known.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
This attack has left 11 people in hospital, one of them a member of the train staff, who is in a critical but stable condition. My party’s thoughts are with all those affected: the victims, their loved ones and everyone who witnessed such a shocking event. We also want to thank the emergency services and rail staff for their swift response, as well as the passengers who intervened to prevent further harm.
After this sort of incident, it is vital that the police are given the time and space they need to establish the full facts. That is ever more difficult due to the rapid spread of disinformation online in the immediate aftermath of such attacks. Within hours, social media was flooded with speculation over the ethnicity and race of the perpetrator, inciting racist and Islamophobic comments. While communities were still reeling from the horror of the attack, certain political figures on the hard right, including members of the Reform party, were already seeking to exploit the incident for political gain. Desperate to involve themselves in the tragedy, they reached for their dog whistles. They threw around baseless opinions on levels of crime when facts were available, shamelessly trying to turn this tragedy into yet another excuse to whip up fear and sow division.
The shadow Home Secretary’s comments today also veered into that realm. Never is an opportunity to blame foreigners missed—that is beneath contempt. At moments like this, those who aspire to leadership must calm fears and attempt to unite, not to inflame tensions. Does the Home Secretary share my view that while knife crime must be tackled forcefully, it is important that all of us must respond with arguments grounded in fact rather than trying to stoke fear?
Can the Home Secretary confirm whether the Government hold data on violent incidents involving knives or sharp instruments where three or more victims were harmed in a single incident? If so, what is the trend over the past two years, or over any other timeframe the Home Secretary has data for? Finally, she has said that the individual was not known to anti-terror police or Prevent, but when the facts are known, will she confirm that proper lessons will be learned about individuals who may pose a risk, be it as a result of mental health issues, an obsession with extreme violence or other relevant factors?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We are running out of time, so I ask for questions, and answers, to be shorter.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
May I put on record our best wishes to the victims and our thanks to the emergency services and railway staff, who did a remarkable job? I know that the Home Secretary cannot comment on this particular case, but one concern I have is around the speculation and disinformation that is rife on social media. Can she make it her job to have a conversation with the social media companies? That kind of speculation does no service to the victims or to the police pursuing this issue.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. That is the end of the statement on the response to the Huntingdon train attack. I will give the Front-Bench teams a few moments to shuffle over.
Police: Professional Standards
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Mr Shannon, I was beginning to get a little bit anxious, but finally you are on your feet.
Jim Shannon
I was holding my breath on this one. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He has given three examples of things that have happened. Does he agree that in a world of grey, it is imperative that the conduct and professionalism of our police forces is black and white and that officers understand that once they put the application form in, their conduct must be of the highest standards, and this will be enforced at the highest level?
Omar al-Bayoumi: Arrest and Extradition
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dan Jarvis
I know that the right hon. Gentleman applies a huge weight of judgment and consideration to these matters, so I completely understand why he sought to bring this matter to the House’s attention. I hope, though, that he understands that I am very limited in what I can say by way of response.
The right hon. Gentleman will remember—I do not think he will mind my saying that he has been around for quite a long time—that in 2001 we were operating under the Extradition Act 1989. As he has mentioned, The Sunday Times has reported that key documents were not considered in 2001 when Mr Omar al-Bayoumi was subject to investigation in respect of the 9/11 bombings in the United States of America. The Sunday Times article suggests that the US did not pursue extradition in 2001. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that there are legal proceedings ongoing in the United States, and that means that I am not able to say any more at this point. I hope that he and the House will understand the reasons for that.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for his remarks. He understandably referenced the article in yesterday’s edition of The Sunday Times, which I accept raises a number of important questions that are absolutely worthy of scrutiny and deserving of the House’s attention. I give him an assurance that the Government and I, as Security Minister, will look closely at the matters raised in the context of the debate. I do not accept the point he made that we are seeking to hide behind the legal proceedings taking place in the US. An article was published in a newspaper yesterday, and I give both the shadow Home Secretary and the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) an assurance that we will look carefully at the detail contained within it.
The shadow Home Secretary also made a reasonable point about the Intelligence and Security Committee. As an experienced Member and a former Minister, he will know that it is not for me to direct the activities of the ISC. It is an independent Committee, and it is very much a matter for the Chair and the Committee to decide what they wish to pursue. However, knowing the Chair as I do—he will be well known to hon. Members right across the House—I would be surprised if he did not want to take a look at it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Ben Maguire.
Palestine Action: Proscription and Protests
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dan Jarvis
I entirely understand why the hon. Lady may wish to raise concerns in the way she has. She made an important point about evidence, and I give her an assurance that we have put into the public domain all the evidence we have been able to. I hope she will understand that there are strict limitations on some things we are able to say for a variety of reasons, not least that there are ongoing police investigations and ongoing criminal proceedings. That limits the ability of Ministers to talk about this issue, but within those constraints we have tried to be as clear as we possibly can about the reasons for this decision. On a number of occasions, the previous Home Secretary and I have laid out the reasons why we took this decision.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I urge the Minister to be a bit more succinct in his responses.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Hundreds of peaceful protesters have been arrested this weekend in the name of national security, but in what way does a peaceful protester’s tactic of holding a banner compromise national security? If the aim of national security is fundamentally to ensure that we can live in a free society where our democratic freedoms are protected, can the Minister not see that the mass arrest of peaceful protesters is an authoritarian measure that undermines, not protects, those freedoms?
Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill
Nusrat Ghani ExcerptsFriday 11th July 2025
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill 2024-26 View all Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 11 July 2025 - (11 Jul 2025)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. If Members hope to contribute, they need to bob throughout. I cannot read their minds, if they only bob towards the end.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. A discussion should not be taking place while colleagues are seated.
Sir Christopher Chope
If the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) says he has no interest in this Bill, then he does not have to attend. I thought he was seeking to intervene, but he was not; he was wanting to make some sedentary remark.
I have put on the record my opposition to and scepticism about the contents of this Bill, and I will leave it at that.
Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Members will have noted from the Order Paper that this debate is only 90 minutes long—it has to conclude at 5.27 pm—which means Back Benchers will be on a speaking limit of four minutes to begin with and that only a few will get in before the debate has to conclude. I call the shadow Minister.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I want to speak specifically about Palestine Action. It is most regrettable that the Government have tabled one order banning three organisations, when it knows that there is political disagreement on Palestine Action. That is no way to bring terror legislation to the House. I want to be clear and to put on the record that I would be supporting the order today if it referred only to the organisations Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement.
Leading legal and human rights organisations Amnesty International and Liberty have condemned the proscription of Palestine Action. Liberty said:
“Targeting a protest group with terrorism powers is a shocking escalation of the Government’s crackdown on protest...This move would be a huge step change in how counter-terror laws are applied.”
Amnesty International UK said:
“We’re deeply concerned at the use of counter-terrorism powers to target protest groups...they certainly shouldn’t be used to ban them.”
They both urged the Home Secretary to rethink before bringing this to Parliament. Yesterday, several United Nations special rapporteurs, including those for protecting human rights while countering terrorism and for promoting freedom of expression, said they had contacted the UK Government to say that
“acts of protest that damage property, but are not intended to kill or injure people, should not be treated as terrorism”.
Likewise, Lord Charlie Falconer, the former Justice Minister, stated that the “sort of demonstration” seen at a military base by Palestine Action would not justify proscription as a terrorist organisation.
Today, we are not voting on whether people agree with Palestine Action’s tactics; we are not voting on whether people think its aim is right or wrong. We are voting on whether the actions it has taken against property, not against people, should lead to its being treated as a terrorist organisation, when what it has done can be prosecuted as criminal damage. There is a long history of protest activity including acts of trespass, criminal damage, sabotage and more. Indeed, the Home Secretary’s recent statement repeatedly refers to criminal damage and the live court cases, showing that there is already legal provision to deal with Palestine Action.
There are a variety of potential consequences if the proscription of Palestine Action is passed. Supporting or joining Palestine Action could carry up to 14 years in prison. That risks criminalising thousands of volunteers and supporters. Thousands have supported or volunteered with Palestine Action, including nurses, students, retirees and professionals. Many have never engaged in direct action, but risk being criminalised. Today, I met representatives of Amnesty International who offered a number of frightening examples of how our constituents could be placed at risk of prosecution under section 12 of the Terrorism Act and could face a maximum sentence of 14 years if Palestine Action are proscribed.
According to Amnesty International, a person who tweets, “I oppose the war crimes in Gaza and I think that Palestine Action has a point,” could easily fall foul of this provision, as could a person who says to another, “I do not support all the methods used by Palestine Action, but I think protest is important and I respect the personal sacrifices members of Palestine Action are willing to make, risking arrest to challenge war crimes,” or an individual with a placard that reads, “Palestine Action is peaceful—it should be de-proscribed.” This legislation could affect constituents who have never been a member of Palestine Action and who have never and would never commit direct action. Speeches or comments they make in community meetings could be trawled, and they could end up facing legal proceedings resulting in a prison sentence of up to 14 years. That concerns us all.
People out there view terrorism as meaning heinous acts such as shooting people, blowing people up, assassinating people and other acts of violence. I urge colleagues to consider the consequences for their constituents of proscribing Palestine Action alongside these other groups.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
Twenty-one years ago, a human rights barrister stood in court and defended an activist who broke into RAF Fairford trying to disable a bomber to prevent war crimes in Iraq. That became a landmark case in lawful, non-violent direct action against an illegal war. That barrister is now our Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer KC. He argued that it was not terrorism but conscience.
Fast-forward to 20 June 2025: two Palestine Action activists entered RAF Brize Norton and sprayed red paint—red paint, not fire—on aircraft linked to surveillance flights over Gaza. Instead of prosecuting them for criminal damage, which is what normally is done, the Home Secretary is using the Terrorism Act 2000 to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist group. This is an unprecedented and dangerous overreach of the state. Never before in Britain has it been a crime to simply support a group.
This order lumps a non-violent network of students, nurses, teachers, firefighters and peace campaigners—ordinary people, my constituents and yours—with neo-Nazi militias and mass-casualty cults. Palestine Action’s real crime is, we have to be clear, shutting down Elbit Systems sites that arm the Israeli military; its true offence is being audacious enough to expose the blood-soaked ties between this Government and the genocidal Israeli apartheid state and its war machine.
Let us be clear: to equate a spray can of paint with a suicide bomb is not just absurd; it is grotesque. It is a deliberate distortion of the law to chill dissent, criminalise solidarity and suppress the truth. Amnesty international, Liberty, over 266 senior lawyers and UN special rapporteurs have all opposed these draconian measures. Even at this late stage, the order should be withdrawn.
Under this order, anyone expressing moral support for a proscribed group could face 14 years in prison. That includes wearing a badge, wearing a T-shirt, sharing a post or calling for de-proscription. And journalists have no exemption either: there is no legal protection for reporting favourably, even factually, about Palestine Action. By this weekend, millions of people, including many of our constituents, could be placed under these sweeping restrictions.
Let us not forget what is happening in Gaza, where the real crimes are being ignored: hospitals bombed, children starved, and tens of thousands of people killed. Palestinian children now suffer more amputations per capita than children anywhere else on earth. Israel is on trial for genocide at the International Court of Justice and the Israeli Prime Minister faces an International Criminal Court arrest warrant, yet the Government’s response is to criminalise solidarity and to continue exporting lethal F-35 jets that are decimating Gaza.
We also have to understand the history of this country and what built our democracy: the tradition of civil disobedience that includes the suffragettes, without whom I would not have the vote, let alone the privilege of being here as an MP.
Even those who oppose Palestine Action’s tactics must recognise the vast gulf between criminal damage and terrorism. If this order passes, what and who is next—climate protesters, striking workers, feminists in the street? Already we have seen a wider crackdown on our civil liberties—musicians censored, journalists arrested, and demonstrators, including MPs sitting here, harassed—and now this Government want to use anti-terror laws to make peaceful protest itself a crime. If our democratic institutions functioned as they should, none of this would be necessary.
To conclude, if this proscription passes, as it will, we have to understand that no campaign will be safe tomorrow. We have to recognise that this will go down as a dark day in our country’s history and one that will be remembered: people will ask, “Which side were you on?” and I stand with the millions of people who oppose genocide, because I am one of them. I oppose the blood-soaked hands of this Government trying to silence us. So I say this loudly and proudly on Wednesday 2 July 2025: we are—
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Let me start by putting on record that I know at least two people who have participated in Palestine Action protests, but that is not why I am speaking today. This is about fundamental principles. This is a chilling moment for British democracy. Let us be clear about what is happening: a political protest group is being silenced. Is it not hugely ironic that this is being done today, given that this morning, hundreds of women MPs, including the Home Secretary, celebrated in Westminster Hall the 97th anniversary of equal votes for women—a victory won by the suffragettes, a direct action protest group?
I have three key points. First, it is a clear overreach to conflate direct action with terrorism. Secondly, this will have a chilling effect on the democratic rights to free speech and protest. Thirdly, it is utterly cynical of the Government to wrap up the proscription of Palestine Action with the proscription of two other clearly terrorist groups. The Terrorism Act 2000 makes it clear that strict proportionality and necessity tests must be met before any group is proscribed, but this decision on Palestine Action is not necessary or proportionate.
As Amnesty International and others have made clear, there is ample criminal law that can be used to respond to a direct action protest network such as Palestine Action. It may have engaged in criminal damage; its supporters may break into airbases; it may have been charged with offences such as violent disorder and aggravated burglary; and it may have carried out actions that I absolutely do not condone—indeed, I condemn the attacks on properties in Stamford Hill, which may understandably have stirred up genuine fear, and I find the words spoken by one of its co-founders at a rally in the aftermath of the 7 October Hamas attacks absolutely horrific—but that does not make Palestine Action terrorists. That bar is, and should be, extremely high. It is commonly understood internationally to involve the use or threat of violence against civilians to instil fear, whereas the stated aim of Palestine Action is to prevent war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
It is not just the members and supporters of Palestine Action who are being silenced but, by association, millions of members of the public. This proscription represents a grave risk to the free speech and protest rights of those who are rightly concerned that a genocide is happening in Gaza on this Government’s watch. Millions of people in this country are active, whether online or in their communities, in campaigning to end the UK’s complicity in that genocide. There is a clear risk that proscribing Palestine Action will criminalise people who, for example, share a social media post, and there is potential for imprisonment for up to 14 years. This proscription interferes with the fundamental rights of members of the public to protest against the Government’s policies, and it is clearly disproportionate in the light of the actions of the group.
I am also deeply concerned by the Home Office’s utterly cynical decision to wrap up the proscription of Palestine Action with that of two other groups that undeniably meet the terrorism test. This has clearly been done to make it extremely difficult for MPs to vote against the motion. I want it on record that I and my Green party colleagues absolutely oppose the proscription of Palestine Action, and we will oppose any similar attacks on the civil disobedience that is such a proud part of UK history.
Let us compare the charges against Palestine Action with those against the Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement. Running paramilitary training camps, producing guides on how to fatally attack somebody and white supremacist neo-Nazis organising in support of satanism are clearly terrorist acts, whereas proscribing Palestine Action appears to be a purely political move, unworthy of a democracy supposedly committed to human rights. No wonder there is significant opposition to this move across Parliament, including from the former Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, Lord Falconer. It is a massive distraction from the continuing horrors in Gaza that Palestine Action wants to bring to an end, as do many in the Chamber—
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I can squeeze in one more speaker if they are brief.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I think it is clear that at this point the Minister does not wish to give way. He has until 5.27 pm, so let us see how this progresses.
Dan Jarvis
These attacks have resulted in serious damage to property and crossed the legal threshold from direct criminal action into terrorism. Members have used violence against people responding at the scenes of attacks, and have been charged with a series of serious offences, including violent disorder, grievous bodily harm with intent and aggravated burglary, which is an offence involving a weapon. This order would degrade their harmful activity. It will also reduce the threat—particularly to vulnerable individuals—from MMC’s violent content, and it will reinforce our support for Ukraine and our commitment to countering extreme right-wing terrorism in Europe.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Mr McDonnell—[Interruption.] I am on my feet. This is a very tight debate that has to conclude at 5.27 pm. The Minister has time; he may wish to take your intervention shortly. Is your point of order really relevant right now?
John McDonnell
It is, Madam Deputy Speaker—let me explain. I want to know whether, if this order goes through and I go out to the demonstration that is mobilising at the moment to say that I am opposed to this, I will be prosecuted.
Madam Deputy Speaker
That was not a point of order. The Minister may wish to respond—he has a few minutes in which to do so—but that was not a point of order.
Dan Jarvis
I am happy to respond directly to the right hon. Gentleman’s point of order. The process of proscription requires this House to agree such action. Should the House do so later this evening, it would then go to the other place, and it would be for the other place to agree the action or not. It would then be for the Home Secretary or myself to sign an order, and that order would then become law at midnight on the night it had been signed.
John McDonnell
What if I oppose it tomorrow? What if I suggest it is wrong?
Dan Jarvis
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman listened to what I said—I just explained to him the process that is in place.
I am grateful to all of those who have considered this matter. This order is a necessary and proportionate step to protect the public and defend our values. That is, after all, the first duty of the state, and under this Government, nothing will matter more. With that, I commend this order to the House.