Members of Parliament pressed the government on Tuesday to change course over its banning of Palestine Action after police made 890 arrests at a London demonstration on Saturday, while the security minister insisted the proscription was necessary and based on independent expert advice.
The scale of the arrests — described by several MPs as the highest seen since the 1990s poll tax riots — prompted an urgent question in the House of Commons. Security Minister Dan Jarvis told MPs there had been 17 arrests for attacks on police officers but defended the decision to proscribe Palestine Action under anti‑terrorism legislation in July, saying the experts who recommended the measure had acted independently of ministers.
Opposition MPs and campaigners condemned the use of terrorism legislation to detain large numbers of demonstrators, saying the move risked diluting the meaning of the term "terrorism" and could chill legitimate protest. Stella Creasy, the Labour MP for Walthamstow, said proscription should target those "inciting direct harm and violence" and warned that arrests of people holding placards or testing the boundaries of free expression muddied the government's stated intent.
"The seriousness of the term terrorism risks losing its meaning, becoming diluted rather than strengthened," Creasy said. Several other Labour MPs recounted constituents among those arrested, including older people, clergy and health professionals, and pressed Jarvis to explain why they had been detained under the legislation.
Jarvis rejected suggestions that the proscription was aimed at peaceful protesters and said the state must act where organisations have shown a willingness to use violence. "Anyone who wishes to demonstrate about the humanitarian situation in Gaza or the actions of any government, including our own, has the absolute freedom to gather with others and voice their views, provided they do so within the law," he told the Commons. "But supporting Palestine and supporting a proscribed terrorist organisation is not the same thing. The vitally important issue of Palestinian rights should not be co‑opted by one organisation that has shown it's willing to use violence in pursuit of its cause."
Jarvis said the police response had been "necessary and proportionate" and praised officers who had acted under pressure. He contrasted the arrests with a separate Palestine Solidarity Campaign march in central London on the same day, in which organisers said some 20,000 people took part peacefully.
The Liberal Democrats called for an urgent review of terrorism legislation, arguing the mass arrests set a "dangerous precedent." Lisa Smart, the party's spokesperson, said existing laws already covered violence, antisemitic abuse and hate speech and that the government needed to ensure its counter‑terror framework did not unduly restrict the right to peaceful protest.
Other Labour MPs spoke of constituents detained under the law. Dr Simon Opher, the MP for Stroud, said several septuagenarian constituents had been arrested and described the use of anti‑terror powers as "a sledgehammer to crack a nut." Abtisam Mohamed, the MP for Sheffield Central, asked for the ban to be overturned, saying "the Terrorism Act wasn't brought in to arrest vicars, retired grandmothers and NHS consultants for holding a placard."
Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, now sitting as an independent MP, also criticised the proscription and urged Jarvis not to "proscribe peaceful protest." Jarvis responded to Corbyn by saying the government had not prevented him or his colleagues from attending demonstrations.
Conservative shadow home secretary Chris Philp and other government supporters defended the ban. Philp pointed to incidents of alleged sabotage and attacks on police, saying such actions were not how disputes should be settled in the UK and arguing the proscription was justified by threats to public safety and national security.
Markus Campbell‑Savours, a Labour MP, asked the police to stop making arrests of people simply holding posters where there was no clear evidence of intent to promote more extreme actions. The debate underscored tensions within Parliament over how to balance the right to protest with the need to prevent violence and protect infrastructure.
The proscription of Palestine Action in July placed the group on a list of organisations banned under the country's anti‑terrorism framework, making membership, support and certain forms of expression criminal offences. Government ministers have argued the measure was taken after expert assessment and in response to activities that crossed into criminality, including alleged attempts to disrupt military operations.
Civil liberties groups and some opposition politicians say the ban, and its enforcement, risk criminalising legitimate political dissent and could have wider implications for demonstrations relating to international conflicts. The events in central London have intensified scrutiny of how terrorism legislation is being applied and prompted renewed calls for a review of the legal scope and safeguards governing proscription.
The Commons exchange did not produce a commitment to overturn the ban. Jarvis maintained that authorities must be able to act against organisations that pose a genuine threat of violence, while critics said parliamentary and public debate should continue over whether the law as used is proportionate and sufficiently nuanced.
Parliamentary pressure for a formal review of the legislation is likely to persist, and groups representing protesters and civil liberties organisations have said they will continue to monitor arrests, seek legal remedies where appropriate and press for clarity on how the law will be applied to political demonstrations in the future.