Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism
Zarah Sultana Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to make that final point. There is no political convenience in what we are seeking to do today. We are seeking to ensure the security of our country, and if he has a little patience, I will further make that case to him and to the House.
Let me turn to Palestine Action. The public attention it has garnered should not be confused with legitimacy, nor should a group formed five years ago be conflated with the legitimate campaign for Palestinian rights and statehood, which has existed in our country and in this House for more than five decades. Let me be clear: the proscription of Palestine Action is not aimed at banning protest that supports Palestine. There are many ways in which people can continue to lawfully express their support for Palestine without being a member or supporter of Palestine Action.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
The Minister will be aware that the High Court has granted Palestine Action permission for a legal challenge. Rather than the Home Secretary, who is not here, rushing this order through Parliament, should it not be delayed until the judicial process has concluded?
Dan Jarvis
I will make a bit of progress, because I hope to answer some of the points that the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] I am about to explain to him that specific recent incidents have informed the decision. I understand why he may not want to listen to that, but I invite him to do so, because the context is very important.
Dan Jarvis
No, I will make some progress now.
Palestine Action’s own materials state
“we are not non-violent and we have specific targets”.
The group has a footprint in all 45 policing regions in the UK, and has pledged to escalate its campaign. This disgraceful pattern of activity cannot be allowed to continue. In applying the legislative framework, the Government assess that Palestine Action commits acts of terrorism. In several attacks—
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—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving notice of her point of order. The Chair does not have the power to separate out decisions on the contents of a statutory instrument. In making her point of order, she has put her concerns on the record.
Zarah Sultana
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the debate on the proscription of Palestine Action, the hon. Member for High Peak (Jon Pearce), whom I have notified of this point of order, spoke without declaring that he is chair of Labour Friends of Israel and has accepted hospitality and overseas trips funded by private Israel lobby organisations. The House was discussing a non-violent direct action group that directly challenges the Israeli state, which is on trial for genocide against the Palestinian people. Can you advise me on what mechanisms are available to make the British public truly aware of what interests are being represented on the Floor of the House?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order, and for having given advance notice of it. The procedure for raising a complaint of this sort is by writing to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and it is not a matter for the Chair.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
Zarah Sultana ExcerptsMonday 10th February 2025
(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
Hon. Members might not realise it from some of the speeches that we have heard, but this Bill is actually about people—people fleeing war, persecution and unimaginable hardship. The repeal of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act and parts of the Illegal Migration Act is welcome, because those cruel, unworkable policies undermined our international obligations and put lives at risk.
This Bill still falls short, however, because it retains harmful provisions, such as section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act, which deems asylum claims from countries such as Albania, Georgia and India inadmissible. Those are not universally safe countries—just ask the LGBT community in Georgia, journalists in Albania, or Kashmiris and religious minorities in India. Survivors of trafficking and torture from those nations seek refuge here, so denying them asylum based on nationality alone is unjust and risks returning them to danger.
Section 29 of the Illegal Migration Act is equally appalling. It denies protections to victims of modern slavery if they have a criminal record, ignoring that many are coerced into crime by traffickers. Punishing victims for their own exploitation is not just cruel; it is a failure of justice. Section 12 further weakens judicial scrutiny of immigration detention, letting the Secretary of State determine what constitutes a reasonable period. That strips away legal safeguards and allows indefinite detention by ministerial order. Sections 12, 29 and 59 also risk breaching the European convention on human rights and should be repealed.
The Bill also introduces new offences that could see refugees prosecuted simply for seeking safety—a deeply troubling approach. In reality, these measures will punish desperate individuals rather than the smugglers who exploit them. Let us be clear: no one risks their life crossing the channel in a flimsy boat unless they have no other choice. Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council, put it plainly:
“Criminalising men, women and children who have fled conflicts in countries such as Sudan does not disrupt the smuggling gangs’ business model. When a refugee is clambering into a boat with an armed criminal threatening them, they are not thinking about UK laws but are simply trying to stay alive. The most effective way to break the smuggling gangs’ grip is to stop refugees from getting into the boats in the first place, which means giving them a legal way to apply for asylum in the UK without crossing the Channel.”
Yet this Bill fails to do that.
The Bill continues to treat desperate people as criminals rather than addressing the reasons that they are forced into dangerous crossings in the first place, and it fuels toxic rhetoric that breeds hate and division. We have all seen the consequences of that: asylum hotels named by MPs in this Chamber have been targeted by far-right rioters who set them alight. I have said it before and I will say it again: the enemy of the working class travels by private jet, not migrant dinghy. When politicians and the right-wing press deliberately stoke anti-migrant sentiment, they distract us from the real issues: a system that prioritises profit over people, that slashes our public services, that gives tax breaks to the wealthy and that allows inequality to flourish.
This Bill could have ended the hostile environment, but it doubles down on the same failed policies by criminalising refugees, denying protection to survivors and failing to provide safe routes. As an MP representing Coventry, a proud city of sanctuary enriched by generations of immigration, I demand better. We need a system that upholds human rights and international law and is built on fairness, compassion and humanity, not more failed, punitive policies. We need safe, legal routes for asylum seekers, family reunification and protections for trafficking survivors. This Bill, however, entrenches injustice instead of ending it.
Immigration and Home Affairs
Zarah Sultana Excerpts(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
Let me begin by saying how good it is to see the Conservative party on the Opposition Benches and in such diminished numbers. No doubt some will say that I am being unsporting, but since politics is not a sport, I will say it anyway: I will never forgive Conservative MPs for the 14 years of damage that they have inflicted on our communities. Child poverty has never been higher and NHS waiting lists have never been longer. Life expectancy is falling and food bank queues are rising. Our public services are cut to the bone and our infrastructure is broken. Our trains are permanently in crisis and our rivers are pumped full of sewage. Our teachers, doctors and nurses have been forced to strike. According to one academic study, 330,000 excess deaths between 2012 and 2019 can be attributed to Tory austerity.
When I say that politics is not a sport but a matter of life and death, that is what I mean. For some it appears to be a parlour game about the next zone 2 dinner party invite, but this is about people’s lives and their material conditions. While the Conservatives scapegoated minorities and slashed support for the poorest, they helped the rich get richer. Workers’ wages are lower than in 2008, but the wealth of UK billionaires is up threefold since the Tories came to power.
The general election results show that people across the country are crying out for change. Our new Labour Government must now deliver it. I am pleased to say for the first time in my parliamentary career that this King’s Speech includes Bills that I look forward to voting for, but I will surprise no one by saying that I want our Government to go further, by introducing the new deal for working people and banning all zero-hours contracts. They must totally end fire and rehire, repeal all anti-trade union legislation, roll out sectoral collective bargaining across the economy, and recognise that the argument that we make for public ownership of rail applies to water, mail and energy too.
In the short time I have to speak today, I want to focus on two areas that I believe need urgent action. First, if the Labour party has a moral mission, it must be to eradicate poverty. After 14 years of the Conservatives, a record 4.3 million children are growing up in poverty. They go to bed hungry, they struggle more in school and their physical and mental health takes a hit. Their parents are put through hell to try to make ends meet. I welcome the child poverty taskforce, but everyone in the Chamber has read the briefings, and everyone knows that the evidence is overwhelming. The key driver of rising child poverty is the two-child benefit cap, and the single most effective way of tackling child poverty is immediately to lift 300,000 children out of poverty by scrapping this cruel policy.
Zarah Sultana
I will be voting for it, thank you. It is a move backed by everyone from Gordon Brown to all 11 trade unions affiliated to the Labour party, the TUC, which represents 6 million workers, the Archbishop of Canterbury and Save the Children. With a 1% wealth tax on assets over £10 million, we could raise the funds needed to pay for the policy three times over. Kids should not have to suffer a single day in avoidable poverty. I will vote for the amendment selected by the Speaker to scrap this cruel Tory policy and, at this late stage, I appeal to our new Labour Front-Bench team to deliver the change that the country has called for, and adopt the policy and immediately lift 300,000 children out of poverty.
The second area needing urgent action relates to my amendment (c). As we debate here in Westminster, raining down hell on Gaza is Israel’s fleet of F-35 fighter jets—planes described by their manufacturer as the most lethal fighter jet in the world. Israel has armed those jets with 2,000 lb bombs with a lethal radius of 365 m—the equivalent of 58 football pitches. A recent UN report identified the bombs as having been used in emblematic cases of indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks on Gaza—attacks that clearly violate international law. I raise this because every F-35 fighter jet is made in part here in Britain, in a deal estimated to be worth £368 million.
That is just one example of Israel’s use of British-made arms in its assault on Gaza, which has killed more than 38,000 people—disproportionately women and children. The legal threshold for these sales to be banned has clearly been met, so they should be banned. There is a clear risk that British-made weapons might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law, hence why, in February, UN experts called on these sales to end immediately. Other countries—Spain, Canada and the Netherlands to name just a few —have suspended sales. Previous British Governments suspended sales after far fewer Israeli assaults: Margaret Thatcher in 1982, Tony Blair in 2002, Gordon Brown in 2009 and David Cameron in 2014.
Today, the Palestinian people face death and destruction on a scale unlike anything they have faced before, but British-made arms are still being licensed to Israel and used to kill innocent people. Again, I say to our new Government: it is time for us to uphold international law and end arms sales to Israel.
Bob Blackman
I will answer the hon. Gentleman’s point before I give way to those on the other side.
The reality is that on 7 October, the Jewish people suffered the worst atrocity since the Holocaust. We must remember that that is what happened, but we must also recognise the deprivation that the Palestinians in Gaza are suffering at this point in time. I am sure that the new Government will seek to ensure that justice is brought to all, and that the terrorists are not allowed to thrive or gain.
I will move on to one or two other areas.
Bob Blackman
I will not. The hon. Lady has had a chance to speak already.
I will mention some other aspects of Government legislation. Clearly, we have to combat the abuse of women and children, and I will work with colleagues from across the House on that issue. In the last Parliament, I championed women going into refuges so that they can be helped by people outside, rather than having intrusion from public services when they are in desperate circumstances. Of course, we must make sure that the police are properly trained, properly skilled and able to deliver the services provided. Equally, we must get the message to our police and crime commissioners, and particularly to the Labour Mayor of London, that more work must be done to combat crime, but also to recruit police officers and make sure that they are properly trained to do the job that they should be doing.
I have already discussed the abolition of the Vagrancy Act 1824 with the Home Secretary. As many colleagues will know, I have championed the plight of homeless people in this place. The fact that homeless people still face being criminalised on our streets is a disgrace and an affront to our society. We have tried on several occasions to get the Act removed from the statute book. It should be consigned to the history books as fast as possible, and people should be given the right to have a proper home of their own—one that they can be proud of living in. Equally, we have to recognise that having a secure job that brings in an income is the best route out of poverty. Despite the rhetoric we have heard, the reality is that the last Government created an economic miracle, given the number of jobs created. We created more jobs in this country than the whole of the European Union combined, and the reality is that that is the route we should be pursuing.
Finally, when the Prime Minister spoke in the debate on the Gracious Speech, he recognised the late Jo Cox and the late David Amess, both of whom suffered the ultimate problem of being an MP: death in service. We must combat that and make sure that all MPs, regardless of their political position, are safe, secure and able to do their jobs. I say gently to colleagues on the Government Front Bench that we agreed, on a cross-party basis, that the pre-recess Adjournment debate in the summer would be forever known as the Sir David Amess pre-recess Adjournment debate. I am disappointed that the Government have chosen not to have a pre-recess Adjournment debate, but they still have time to adjust the timetable accordingly.