|
What is your position on the proscription of Palestine Action and the recent High Court’s ruling that the proscription of the group was ‘unlawful’?
Three high court judges recently found the Home Office’s proscription of Palestine Action (PA) to be unlawful. The proscription remains in place for the time being, as I believe the court has given the Government time to appeal the decision.
Although I voted in favour of proscribing the group, based on the evidence presented to parliamentarians by the police and security services at the time, I did so with caution and concern.
As the Chair of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, it was absolutely untenable for me not to support the proscription of the Russian Imperial Movement and Maniacs Murder Cult, who were grouped with Palestine Action in the proscription order that was passed by Parliament in July 2025.
At the time, I was advised by Government officials that credible evidence pointed to planned and organised attacks on UK security infrastructure. Their decision was also informed by the group’s alleged involvement in significant criminal damage and a consistent trend of increasingly aggressive tactics.
Since the group’s proscription and the arrest of its supporters at marches, I have become increasingly concerned by the situation where this group is listed as a terror threat and by the unintended consequences it has had for those engaging in peaceful protest. I know of friends and constituents who have been arrested. I recognise the depth of concern by those who have shared opposition to the group’s proscription and have worries for the wider risks posed to the right to peacefully protest the atrocities we have all witnessed in Gaza.
I had previously raised my concerns with the Minister for Security, Dan Jarvis MP. In my letter, I asked for the Minister to clarify the Government’s rationale for proscribing PA, as well as the Minister’s assessment of the Police’s operational response to this ruling and implications for peaceful protest.
Despite the Minister’s detailed reply and the valuable discussions I have had with him since, it seems increasingly clear that it was the wrong action to take. If PA had been considered in a separate, individual motion, I would not have supported it.
It is my understanding that there is now a case to be made for the introduction of legislation that more effectively targets individuals, rather than entire groups, who cross the threshold from direct criminal action into terrorism. Today’s ruling is further evidence that threats to national security and public safety warrant targeted Government intervention. Intervention that neither erodes the right to freedom of assembly and expression, nor exposes the public to threats from organised criminals or terrorists. Therefore, I intend to raise this matter with the Home Office in due course.
Finally, the last Palestine Action hunger striker ended his protest at the end of January. This followed the decision of three other Palestine Action protestors to end their hunger strike earlier in the month. Their strike ended following the UK Government’s decision not to award a British Army contract to a subsidiary of an Israeli weapons company, Elbit Systems.
Whilst I am relieved that the hunger strikers are now accepting food and fluid from prison staff, as well as much-needed medical support, I was alarmed to read about the conditions these particular prisoners were subjected to.
In a private letter I wrote before Christmas to the Justice Secretary, David Lammy MP, I expressed my deep concern for the wellbeing, safety and remand status of members of PA on strike in prisons across the UK. In their response, the Government outlined the prison services’ commitment to inmate safety during hunger strikes and, understandably, I was advised that Government Ministers are unable to comment on ongoing criminal proceedings.
Please be assured that I appreciate the sensitivity of these matters and continue to follow their development. I endeavour to raise your concerns in Parliament and with the Government at the next available opportunity.
Will you speak at the Backbench Business Debate on "Obligation to Assess the Risk of Genocide Under International Law in Relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territories" which will take place on Thursday 5 February?
Although I was unable to attend this debate due to prior Parliamentary commitments, I know that the Government continues to consider the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
On Thursday 5 February, the Minister for the Middle East responded to a debate on the risk of genocide under international law in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The Minister made clear the British Government have conducted an assessment on the risk of genocide in accordance with the UK’s legal obligations.
The Minister stressed that the Government considered the UK’s international legal obligations to be a priority and that the Government took this issue seriously. He stated he had confidence that the Government was serious about international law in part because of the scrutiny the Government has faced in the Court of Appeal and in Parliament.
I believe the ICJ is a vital international institution. We need to see it continue its work, and it is for the Court to make a judgement on genocide. As you may be aware, the ICJ has not yet made a finding of genocide in this case. It would undermine the ICJ if the UK Government sought to jump to the end of the process.
I believe it is right for the Government to take time to respond appropriately to the advisory opinion of the ICJ, especially in the context of Britain having changed its policy in recognising the state of Palestine. I understand the Government is likely to return to Parliament to further discuss these issues in due course and I endeavour to follow the Government’s progress closely.
Will you sign Early Day Motion 2376, which calls for the Government to implement measures to prevent companies in Britain from aiding international law violations through involvement in the trade and manufacturing of cluster munitions?
Although I no longer sign Early Day Motions, commonly referred to as EDMS, I too am concerned by reports of the use of cluster munitions by the Israeli Defence Forces, although the Government cannot confirm these reports. I continue to urge all parties to refrain from using such munitions and to adhere to international humanitarian law.
As you may know, the UK is a State Party to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, which comprehensively prohibits all use, production, transfer, and stockpiling of cluster munitions. I remain committed to the Convention. It plays an important role in the protection of civilians. I know the Government continues to use its best efforts to promote it and discourage the use of cluster munitions by all states, regardless of their views on the Convention.
The human and financial costs of cluster munitions are devastating. Long after conflicts cease, civilians and frequently children continue to be killed, maimed and left permanently disabled by unexploded cluster munitions. As well as the terrible human cost, this creates a further toll on the long-term development and health systems in countries trying to recover from conflict. Anti-personnel and cluster munitions also deny access to land, further imperilling food security and inflicting severe financial costs.
Regarding points raised regarding Elbit Systems, like many European allies, the UK sources defence components from a range of international suppliers based on operational requirements, value for money, and compliance with our security and legal obligations.
I am assured that, in line with Public Procurement Regulations, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) conducts due diligence checks on its contractors. These include verification of a supplier's financial stability, operational capabilities, and compliance with regulations. The Department has no contracts with Elbit Systems UK for cluster munitions.
| 
