My statement on the proscription of Palestine Action

I, and the Liberal Democrats have long championed the right to protest. We opposed the previous Conservative Government’s draconian anti-protest laws every step of the way, including the Public Order Act.

Liberal Democrats are committed to scrapping these laws and restoring pre-existing protections for both peaceful assembly and public safety. We have long believed that the police already had the powers they needed to stop what goes beyond a peaceful protest, long before the Conservatives introduced new legislation.

I am deeply concerned by the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and the actions of the Israeli Government. I have consistently condemned both the unlawful blockade and the expansion of military operations that have brought untold suffering to the people of Palestine.

As outlined in recent statements from the Liberal Democrats, we continue to press the Government to take meaningful action – including the immediate lifting of the blockade, sanctions on Israeli ministers who advocate the dispossession of Palestinians, a halt to UK arms exports to Israel, and the recognition of a Palestinian state. These steps are essential if we are to make real progress towards a two-state solution that delivers dignity, security, and justice for both Palestinians and Israelis.

During the debate yesterday, Liberal Democrat Home Affairs Spokesperson Lisa Smart MP raised concerns about the proportionality of the Government’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action, which I have shared below:

“No matter how strongly any of us feels about the appalling humanitarian crisis in Gaza—and many of us across this House and across the country feel very strongly indeed—that does not justify attacks on military bases in Britain. Those responsible must face the full force of the law; there is no doubt about that.

However, those laws already exist, and that is not what is in front of MPs today. The question we face is not whether or not these people have committed crimes, but whether someone who merely expresses support for them should face up to 14 years in jail. The bar for which groups should be proscribed as terrorist organisations is rightly set very high. It is crucial that the reasons for these decisions are transparent to maintain the public’s trust in our counter-terrorism framework.

I have listened carefully both to experts who have raised concerns, including those from the UN who were mentioned by the Mother of the House, and to what the Minister has said. I have also seen the Home Secretary’s words about her reasons for making this decision based on damage to property, notwithstanding the Minister’s comments on the use of violence.

Proscribing an organisation solely on the grounds of serious damage to property would, I believe, be unprecedented. To date—I would welcome the Minister correcting me if I have got this wrong—no organisation has been proscribed in the UK exclusively for property damage, as is the case here, according to the Home Secretary’s words on the Government website.

While there may be compelling legal arguments that the actions of Palestine Action have met the legal definition of terrorism in terms of serious criminal damage, the decision to proscribe is ultimately made at the Home Secretary’s discretion. There are still questions as to whether that discretion is proportionate in this case, given the level of threat posed to the general public. I would welcome more details from the Minister on why he believes this is a proportionate response, as I remain to be convinced.

Currently the maximum custodial term for certain offences relating to membership of, or expressing support for, a proscribed terrorist organisation is 14 years. Yet in instances such as this, where actions, though criminal and damaging, may not pose the same imminent threat to life, a blanket application of such severe penalties risks being disproportionate.

The Home Secretary rightly has substantial powers to take action to keep our country safe, but it is also right and entirely proper that we scrutinise the use of these powers and press the Government to ensure that any use of them is wholly proportionate.”

I should stress that I personally would have voted not to proscribe Palestine Action. Unfortunately, the Government cynically grouped three organisations together under one vote - Palestine Action, along with two violent neo-Nazi groups, the Maniacs Murder Cult (MMC) and the Russia Imperial Movement (RIM). There was no opportunity to vote on them separately. By lumping them in together, the government made it Hobson’s Choice. As I say, a deeply cynical strategy on their part. Sometimes, much like spoiling your ballot in an election, abstention is a way of actively indicating your refusal to accept, or objection to, the choice you have been offered. So I, and my fellow Lib Dems, abstained. This was not a decision taken lightly.