The Minister for Security and Borders (Damian Hinds) I beg to move,
That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations)
(Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2021, which was laid before this House on
19 November, be approved. This Government are committed to
protecting the people of this country, and tackling terrorism in
all its forms is clearly a critical and central part of that
mission. As the House will be aware, following the tragic death of
our friend, Sir David...Request free
trial
The Minister for Security and Borders ()
I beg to move,
That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations)
(Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2021, which was laid before this House
on 19 November, be approved.
This Government are committed to protecting the people of this
country, and tackling terrorism in all its forms is clearly a
critical and central part of that mission.
As the House will be aware, following the tragic death of our
friend, , last month, and the explosion
outside Liverpool Women’s Hospital earlier this month, the
independent Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre raised the threat
level in the UK from substantial to severe on 15 November. A
severe threat level means that an attack is highly likely.
Terrorism poses a persistent and enduring threat to our way of
life. Public protection must be our No.1 priority and we continue
to work very closely with counter-terrorism, policing and the
intelligence and security agencies in pursuit of that vital
endeavour. The Government’s position towards Hamas is
well-documented.
(Reigate) (Con)
While my right hon. Friend is on the subject of the assessment of
the terrorist threat, will he say whether there is any assessment
at all of any threat to the United Kingdom from Hamas?
I will come to the reasoning for the proscription order in this
case.
As I was saying, we have a no-contact policy now with the
entirety of the group, but we proscribe only the military
wing.
(Birmingham, Selly Oak)
(Lab)
Will the Minister give way?
Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me for a moment? I will give way,
if that is all right, a wee bit later.
We mirror the EU sanctions in our own domestic regime against
Hamas, also in their entirety. The Government condemn Hamas’s
indiscriminate and abhorrent rocket attacks and remain resolute
in our commitment to Israel’s security. We continue to call on
Hamas permanently to end its incitement and rocket fire against
Israel.
I support the measure. It seems to have cross-party support,
which I welcome. It seems to me that it largely closes a few
existing loopholes and brings us into line with the position of
our allies. None the less, does the right hon. Gentleman agree
that it does not close the door on Hamas participating in the
political process? Were it to recognise Israel’s right to exist
and renounce violence and terrorism—in effect, accept the Quartet
principles—it would be very welcome.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for
the support that he indicates for the measure. Our position on
Hamas is clear and it is public. Hamas must renounce violence. It
must recognise Israel and accept previously signed agreements.
Credible moves must be made towards those conditions. They remain
the benchmark against which intention should be judged.
(Ipswich) (Con)
rose—
I will take one more intervention and then, Madam Deputy Speaker,
I suggest that I make some progress.
I thank the Minister for giving way. Last weekend, an Israeli
tour guide was murdered in Jerusalem. My understanding is that
the individual who committed that murder was a member of the
political wing of Hamas. Surely that goes to prove that this
arbitrary distinction between a military wing and a political
wing is not accurate, and that, in its entirety, Hamas is a
terrorist organisation and deserves to be labelled as such.
The incident that my hon. Friend mentions is a timely reminder,
and our sympathies are very much with the victims and their
families and friends. I will come on, if I may, to the important
point that he raises about the distinction, or lack thereof,
between the so-called political and military wings.
The threat posed by terrorist organisations varies depending on
each group’s ideology, membership and ability to train members.
Groups such as Hamas train members in terrorism, as well as
preparing and committing terrible acts of violence against
innocent members of the public. We have a duty to our allies, as
well as to our own people, to tackle groups that inspire and
co-ordinate terror on the international stage. Although we can
sadly never entirely eliminate the threat from terrorism, we must
always do all that we can to act against and mitigate the danger
it poses, and to seek to keep the public safe.
Some 78 terrorist organisations are proscribed under the
Terrorism Act 2000. Thanks to the dedication, courage and skill
of counter-terrorism policing, and our security and intelligence
services, most of these groups have never carried out a
successful attack on British soil. Proscription is a powerful
tool for degrading terrorist organisations and I will explain the
impact that it can have shortly. We propose to amend the existing
listing of “Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem Brigades”, or Hamas IDQ,
in schedule 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to cover Hamas in its
entirety.
Under section 3 of TACT 2000, the Home Secretary has the power to
proscribe an organisation if she believes that it is currently
concerned in terrorism. If the statutory test is met, the Home
Secretary may then exercise her discretion to proscribe that
organisation. The Home Secretary considers a number of factors in
considering whether to exercise her discretion. The relevant
discretionary factors for Hamas are: the nature and scale of an
organisation’s activities; the specific threat posed to British
nationals overseas; and the need to support other members of the
international community in tackling terrorism.
The effect of proscription is to outlaw a listed organisation and
ensure that it is unable to operate in the UK. Proscription is
designed to degrade a group’s ability to operate through various
means, including: enabling prosecution for the various
proscription offences; under- pinning immigration-related
disruptions, including the exclusion from the UK of members of
groups based overseas; making it possible to seize cash
associated with an organisation; and sending a strong signal
globally that a group is concerned in terrorism and is without
legitimacy.
(Forest of Dean) (Con)
On my right hon. Friend’s latter point, is not one of the
strongest reasons for proscribing the whole organisation to
strengthen the role of moderate Palestinians and the ability of
the Palestinian Authority to come to a peace agreement with
Israel, and to send a clear message that extremists, who do not
accept the existence of Israel and want to use violence, have no
place in this process? Is not that one of the strongest benefits
of the proscription that my right hon. Friend is setting out?
The signalling and messaging are important, as are the practical
effects of proscription. I will come briefly to the middle east
peace process, and our continuing hopes for a peaceful and
sustainable future for all.
It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to, support or
arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation. It is
also a criminal offence to wear clothing or carry articles in
public that arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a
member or supporter of a proscribed organisation. The penalties
for proscription offences are a maximum of 14 years in prison
and/or an unlimited fine. Given the wide-ranging impact, the Home
Secretary exercises her power to proscribe only after thoroughly
reviewing the available evidence on an organisation. That
includes open source material, intelligence material and advice
that reflects consultation across Government, including with
intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The cross-Government
proscription review group supports the Home Secretary in her
decision-making process. The Home Secretary’s decision to
proscribe is only taken after great care and consideration of the
particular case, and it is appropriate that it must be approved
by both Houses.
Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary
believes that Hamas in its entirety is concerned in terrorism and
the discretionary factors support proscription. Although I am of
course unable to comment on specific intelligence, I can provide
the House with a summary of the group’s activities. Hamas is a
militant Islamist movement that was established in 1987. Its
ideology is related to that of the Muslim Brotherhood combined
with Palestinian nationalism. Its main aims are to liberate
Palestine from Israeli occupation, the establishment of an
Islamic state under sharia law and the destruction of Israel,
although Hamas no longer demands the destruction of Israel in its
covenant. The group operates in Israel and the Occupied
Palestinian Territories.
(Carmarthen East and
Dinefwr) (Ind)
My intervention is further to that of the right hon. Member for
Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who made the key point: what
assessment have the British Government made of the impact of the
measure on the internal political dynamics of the Palestinian
Territories? Does it weaken Hamas, as the right hon. Member for
Forest of Dean said, and help the moderate forces, or is there a
danger that it might strengthen Hamas’s hand?
We are of course greatly concerned with what happens in-country
and in-region. We want to see progress. We want to see the
Palestinian Authority extending its governance. But this measure
is specifically about the entity of Hamas. It is a proscription
of a body because of its involvement in terrorism, and this
debate and vote must focus on that specific question.
(Feltham and Heston)
(Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister clarify what assessment has been made of
important discussions that may need to go on in relation to
humanitarian issues, education and healthcare, and how that will
continue in the very important work that has to be done to
support people in the Gaza strip?
The hon. Lady makes a very important point. If she will forgive
me, I am coming to that a little later in my remarks, and I will
cover it then.
Hamas formally established Hamas IDQ in 1992. IDQ was proscribed
by the UK in March 2001. At the time, it was determined that
there was a distinction between the political and military wings
of Hamas, and that the only part of the organisation that was
concerned in terrorism, and should therefore be proscribed, was
the military wing. Over the past 20 years, as my hon. Friend the
Member for Ipswich () said, Hamas’s so-called military
and political wings have grown closer together, with any
distinction between them now considered to be artificial. The
Government’s assessment is that Hamas is a complex but single
organisation made up of constituent parts, one of which includes
Hamas IDQ. It is clear that these constituent parts are not
wholly independent of Hamas’s so-called political wing and that
they take strategic direction from it. There is also movement of
key individuals across the organisation as well as, of course, a
shared ideology. It is clear that the current proscription
listing of Hamas does not reflect its true structure, and that is
why this order has been laid. The Home Secretary has a reasonable
belief that Hamas, in its entirety, is concerned in terrorism. It
is our assessment that the group prepares for, commits and
participates in acts of terrorism. There is also evidence that
the group promotes and encourages terrorism.
Indiscriminate rocket or mortar attacks against Israeli targets
are key examples of Hamas committing this terrorism. During the
May 2021 conflict, over 4,000 rockets were fired indiscriminately
into Israel. Civilians, including two children, were killed as a
result. The rocket attacks also targeted airports and maritime
interests. Hamas also frequently uses incendiary balloons to
launch attacks from Gaza into southern Israel. There was a spate
of incendiary balloon attacks from Gaza into southern Israel
during June and July 2021, causing fires and resulting in serious
damage to property. These attacks were likely carried out by both
Hamas and by Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which is already
proscribed. Only last summer, Hamas launched camps in Gaza that
focused on training groups, including minors, to fight. In a
press statement Hamas described the aim of these camps as to
“ignite the embers of jihad in the liberation generation,
cultivate Islamic values, and prepare the expected victory army
to liberate Palestine”. This vile indoctrination of young people
into the organisation’s violent ideology shows how diametrically
opposed it is to our country’s core values.
The action we are taking is not a commentary on the ongoing
tensions in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, nor
is it a departure in any way from the Government’s long-standing
position on the middle east peace process. We continue to support
a negotiated settlement leading to a safe and secure Israel
alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state. This decision
is based on the Government’s assessment that Hamas, in its
entirety, is concerned in terrorism and that proscription is a
proportionate action to take, and nothing more. Having concluded
that the distinction maintained in the list of proscribed
organisations is artificial, it is right that this is addressed.
Hamas, in its entirety, is a terrorist organisation. We must be
clear on this to avoid conferring legitimacy on any element of
the organisation.
It goes without saying that this Government do not provide any
assistance to Hamas or the Government structure in Gaza that is
made up of Hamas members. However, to answer the point made by
the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (), this proscription will not
prevent aid from reaching civilians in need. In Gaza we have
strong controls in place to monitor spending and ensure that aid
sent into the region reaches its intended beneficiaries.
To conclude, the enduring and wide-ranging nature of the threat
from terrorism demands an agile approach and a comprehensive
strategy. That includes confronting groups that participate in
and prepare for acts of terrorism or unlawfully glorify horrific
terrorist acts. We must use every tool at our disposal to prevent
them from stirring up hatred and division in our communities. We
will never be cowed by those who hate the values we hold dear.
The safety and security of the public is our No. 1 priority, and
I commend the order to the House.
15:40:00
(Torfaen) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for the letter she sent me on Friday,
detailing her intention to bring forward this proscription motion
and the reasons for its being considered at this time.
I start by outlining that the Opposition agree with the
proscription motion and support the decision to proscribe Hamas
in its entirety. As the Leader of the Opposition and I have
repeatedly said, the first priority of any Government is the
safety of its people and the protection of the public. I thank
the members of the proscription review group for the vital work
they do.
In the past month, this country has yet again faced the horror of
two terror attacks. In Liverpool, a bomb was exploded outside the
Liverpool Women’s Hospital, with the taxi driver, David Perry,
fleeing from the car and fortunately surviving that horrific
situation. We think of him and all the people of Liverpool. Only
yesterday, I and hon. Members across the House attended
Westminster Cathedral for Sir David Amess’s requiem mass, when he
was laid to rest. That callous terrorist attack took the life of
a much-loved Member of this House, leaving behind his family and
friends. We think also of them today. Those incidents are the
most sobering of reminders that any act of terrorism is designed
to sow division and hatred. We always stand together against
these attempts to drive us apart.
As the Minister set out, the proscription tool is a vital one in
the fight against terrorism. We on the Opposition Benches
appreciate the difficult balance that must be struck when
considering the application of the test in section 3 of the
Terrorism Act 2000. The previous Labour Government proscribed
Hamas’s military wing in 2001 and made the assessment that there
was at that time a meaningful distinction between the military
and political wings.
Looking at this situation today, 20 years on, the Government have
set out that there is now no distinction between the military and
political wings. They have said there is an
“interconnectivity (including movement of individuals into
different leadership roles across Hamas’ various structures) and
cooperation between Hamas’ constituent parts; and that Hamas’
constituent parts are not wholly independent of the so called
political wing of the organisation and take strategic direction
from it.”
Hamas, the Government have said, is certainly a complex
organisation, but it is a “single terrorist organisation”, and
the Opposition accept that.
The Minister gave a number of reasons in his opening remarks for
why this step has been taken, noting Hamas’s significant
terrorist capability, including access to sophisticated weaponry
and training facilities. The proscription also affects the
ability to raise money and means significant restrictions on any
activity here in the UK.
I turn, however, to a wider discussion on the use of
proscription. I would be grateful if, when the Minister responds
to the debate, he addressed these points in his further remarks.
First, public confidence in the process is important. While of
course matters must often remain confidential for reasons of
national security, to the extent that it is possible,
transparency is crucial. Can the Minister reassure hon. Members
how often the cross-Government proscription review group
considers these matters, and that the decisions are always under
review?
Secondly, proscription is only one of the measures available in
our armoury to tackle terrorism. At whatever level and wherever
it comes from, it depends on the proper resourcing of our
counter-terrorist and mainstream policing. When terrible major
incidents happen, it is not only the counter-terror budget that
is affected; resources are inevitably drawn in from mainstream
policing. In addition, I commend neighbourhood policing that
provides not only reassurance in our communities but vital local
intelligence in the fight against terrorism. Appropriate funding
for all those areas of our policing is crucial.
In relation to this proscription, Members on both sides of the
House remain committed to a negotiated settlement to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict that delivers a safe and secure
Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state. We
know that meaningful dialogue that brings together those from
both sides of the conflict to find a resolution offers the only
prospect of a meaningful and lasting peace in the middle
east.
Earlier this year, the conflict between Israel and Palestine
erupted once again, with lives lost on both sides. Given our
country’s important role in supporting peace talks, I ask the
Minister to give his assessment of and reassurance on the impact
that today’s decision will have on the prospect of securing a
peaceful resolution to the conflict, and what he understands the
implications are for future engagement with bodies including the
Palestinian Legislative Council and the Palestinian
Authority.
Similarly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston
() said, could the Minister
outline the impact that he foresees on non-governmental
organisations supporting Palestinian civilians in Gaza and on
British people who are there at the moment and their safety? He
gave a reassurance in his opening remarks about humanitarian aid
still getting to where it is needed, but if he could expand on
that and set out how he sees that happening in future, that would
be helpful for Members on both sides of the House.
My right hon. Friend is making an important speech. Does he agree
that that must include giving guidance to the British consul
general? Important visits happen that have an impact on many
areas of policy and supporting NGOs on the ground. It is
important to have that guidance to make sure that they can
continue as they have been.
I agree with my hon. Friend that guidance is vital and I hope
that the Minister will address that point when he winds up.
As the Minister stated, the decision brings the United Kingdom
into line with our allies the United States, Canada and the
European Union, all of which have already proscribed Hamas in its
entirety. I end by thanking our policing, especially
counter-terror policing and our emergency services that, sadly
and tragically, have been called into action many times in recent
years. In the last few years, there have been several appalling
attacks from the Manchester Arena bombing to the attacks on our
democracy here in Parliament. Our world-leading security services
have prevented 31 attacks since 2017; we thank them for their
dangerous, careful and painstaking work.
Let us, too, mark the resolve and strength that our communities
have shown in the face of such threats, which should give us
cause for optimism. We continue to fight terrorism in all its
forms and we support the motion.
15:48:00
(Newark) (Con)
I take this opportunity—my first—to congratulate my right hon.
Friend the Minister on his appointment to the role, which I can
see that he is already performing exceptionally well, as I would
expect. I thank him and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary
for their decision to proscribe Hamas in its entirety, which I
strongly support. I also thank the shadow Home Secretary, the
right hon. Member for Torfaen (); the shadow Foreign
Secretary, the hon. Member for Wigan (); and the Leader of the
Opposition for their important decision to support the Home
Secretary’s decision, which is to be welcomed wholeheartedly.
Last week, a young man, as we heard earlier—Eli Kay, a
26-year-old tour guide—was murdered as he was doing his business,
walking around the old city in Jerusalem. His grandparents are
well-respected members of the West Hampstead Jewish community,
and he had deep links here in the United Kingdom. I think all of
us would send our best wishes and our deepest condolences to his
grandparents and all those who knew him here in the UK. He was
murdered by a Hamas terrorist—a Hamas terrorist who purported to
be from the political wing of that organisation. That one young
man’s brutal, unexpected and unexplainable death goes some way to
explain why we as a country need to be proscribing the whole of
the organisation that that murderer, that terrorist belonged
to.
I cannot reach into the heart of that individual and explain what
motivated him to take the life of Eli Kay. I do not think any of
us here can. That is terrorism—that is the unexplainable impact
of terrorism. It is pure evil. We cannot accommodate terrorism.
When someone uses the slaughter of innocent people to advance a
political cause or a supposed political cause, at that point that
cause becomes immoral and unjust, and they and the organisation
that they stand for have to be eliminated from serious debate and
serious discussion.
We have to take this issue seriously, and I am afraid at times in
this country we do not. We have seen, just in the last few weeks,
two very serious terrorist incidents. Most deeply we felt, of
course, the loss of our friend and former colleague , and of course we have seen a
very serious incident—albeit one that could have been all the
more serious—in Liverpool. We do not know, and it is not our role
right now to speculate on, the true causes and motivations of
either of those incidents, but we know enough to say that they
were motivated by extremist individuals. That, again, should give
us cause to redouble our efforts here to tackle extremism in all
its forms, and that is why I think this effort, this move is so
important.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister has said, the distinction
between the political and the military wing of this organisation
has for a very long time been entirely artificial, just as it was
with Hezbollah, which we took similar action to proscribe in its
entirety just a couple of years ago. It was an absurdity that,
during the al-Quds Day rally, an individual could march through
the streets of London shouting antisemitic remarks and waving the
flag of Hezbollah, but get away with it because it was the flag
of the political wing of Hezbollah, not the military wing. For
exactly the same reasons as the former Home Secretary took action
against Hezbollah, it is absolutely right that the current one
does the same with respect to Hamas.
This action will be welcomed in the United Kingdom and by our
friends and allies around the world, not just in the west—where
the European Union, the United States, Australia and other
countries have already done this—but in a number of Gulf states.
I was in Bahrain at the weekend, and I can assure my right hon.
Friend and Members of this House that the Government there
support this action. It is entirely in line with what is
happening in the middle east today. When I was in Bahrain on
Saturday, I visited a synagogue with the former Bahraini
ambassador to the United States who is both a woman and a Jew,
and is now a senior member of the Government in Bahrain. Thanks
to the Abraham accords, the whole atmosphere in much of the
middle east is beginning to change.
This hatred between Muslims and Jews is a product of history,
which we must consign to history. Organisations such as Hamas
that stand for that hatred must be treated as the terrorist
organisations they are. We only need to look at its charter to
see that. Its preamble has a promise that Islam will “obliterate”
Israel. Article 32 reads:
“Leaving the circle of struggle against Zionism is high
treason”.
Article 15 reads:
“In the face of the Jews’ usurpation, it is compulsory that the
banner of Jihad be raised.”
Article 7 reads:
“The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight Jews
and kill them.”
This is an organisation that in its entirety deserves to be
proscribed in the United Kingdom. By doing so, we will help to
further isolate Hamas, we will hinder its ability to raise funds
and spread its extremist ideologies, and we will bolster more
moderate forces in Palestine and elsewhere in the middle east. I
strongly support the Government’s action today, and it is
extremely heartening that it is being conducted in a broadly
cross-party approach.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. Mr Percy, were you indicating that you might want to speak
earlier—is that right?
(Brigg and Goole) (Con)
indicated assent.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Okay. The debate has to finish at 4.53 pm and I want to bring the
Minister in with adequate time to respond, so I just warn Members
that after the SNP spokesperson, I am likely to introduce a time
limit of perhaps eight or nine minutes to give us a chance to get
everybody in. I call .
15:55:00
(Stirling) (SNP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will endeavour to be brief
too.
I think that across the House we all have a common endeavour: we
all support a just peace in the middle east. That just peace will
need to be based on dialogue, the rule of law and peaceful
respect. Israel has a right to exist and a right to peace and
security within its borders, but we also recognise that a deep
injustice has been done to the Palestinian people, and that
injustice is continuing. Everything in the middle east is
connected to everything else, and it is important for all of us,
as outsiders, to view it in totality rather than through a
particular prism.
We believe that international law should be applied to all sides,
and there are more than two sides to this dispute. Peace is made
not among friends but among enemies, and difficult conversations
with difficult people need to be taken forward to create the
conditions for peace to happen. Dialogue is not supported by
declaring stakeholders, however unpalatable, to be persona non
grata or illegal. That said, we recognise, of course, the odious
nature of Hamas. As a gay man, I need no reminder of the reality
of that obnoxious organisation.
Proscribing all of Hamas will bring the UK in line with the US,
all EU states, Japan and Canada, and Australia is in the process
of adopting similar measures. We recognise the wider construct.
However, we have unease at this proposal, and that unease boils
down under three heads: the timing, the process, and the
implications of this proposal in the real world.
On the timing, why is this being done now? I listened with great
attention to the Minister. I did not find much I disagreed with,
but I also did not find much that we could not have heard two or
three years ago. Hamas was an odious organisation as the EU
proscribed it; the UK took a different path. That that line is
being changed now begs more questions than we have had answers
today.
As recently as 18 months ago, in response to a written
parliamentary question in June 2020, Minister Brokenshire set out
the UK Government’s position as follows:
“The political wing of Hamas is not proscribed as it is
considered that there is a clear distinction between Hamas’s
military and political wings.”
That was the position very recently. I have not heard much today
to suggest that much has changed. I would hate to think that this
measure has been brought forward for domestic or, indeed, party
political purposes, playing fast and loose with peace in the
middle east—an issue that we must all take gravely seriously.
On the process, the Australian Parliament has just concluded a
thoroughgoing review of this very question. Where was the UK
Parliament’s similar review? Where was the engagement of
Parliament in these processes? I do not doubt that there has been
a process, but this House has not heard much of it. The House
needs far greater opportunity to scrutinise how we got to this
proposal, rather than just the opportunity to nod it through. The
Australian Parliament has reached broadly the same conclusion, so
I am not necessarily disagreeing with the proposal; I am,
however, querying how we got here.
As Members on both sides of the House have already asked, what
consultation has there been with allies—especially countries,
such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia, that do not proscribe Hamas but
have back-channel dealings with it, on both finance and other
matters? Crucially, what consultation has there been with the
humanitarian non-governmental organisation community?
(Central Ayrshire)
(SNP)
My hon. Friend will know that my husband and I spent 18 months as
volunteers in Gaza in the early ’90s and have been running a
breast cancer project between Scotland and Gaza for the last five
years. My concern—I apologise for being late due to the change of
time and my slow speed of running—is this. Do we not need clarity
on the position of small education and healthcare NGOs in Gaza
supporting the 2 million people there? The work that I and my
volunteers do inevitably involves the Ministry of Health because
that is who runs the hospitals. It is simply unavoidable. I am
afraid this will send a chill when I am trying to recruit breast
cancer specialists in Scotland to keep supporting this wonderful
project.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention and I pay
tribute to the work she has done over a long period and her
humanitarian efforts in Gaza in particular.
I refer to the explanatory notes to this statutory instrument.
The final sentence states:
“A full impact assessment has not been produced for this Order as
no, or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary or public
sector is foreseen.”
I am glad to hear that, but I have to say that I find it quite
unbelievable. I think it fits into a pattern of behaviour we have
seen on the ground. The Minister will be aware of the Israeli
Government banning six Palestinian humanitarian NGOs on deeply
spurious grounds. I am concerned about anything that shuts down
the space for dialogue and civil society in this conflict.
That is our final unease on this matter: the implications. What
will be the effect—I would be grateful to the Minister if he
could reassure me and I am open to that reassurance today—of this
listing on NGOs, big and small, and on civil society? The reality
in Gaza especially is that Hamas is a fact of life. You cannot
get anything done—you cannot get aid delivered, you cannot have a
medical project, you cannot have a civil society dialogue—without
Hamas’s active involvement one way or another. I do not say that
as a matter of anything to be glad about, but it is the reality.
How will this listing impact on the NGOs trying to promote
dialogue and civil society, and trying to deliver humanitarian
aid? Anything that would limit their activities or curtail their
active involvement is surely a retrograde step. I would be
grateful to the Minister if he could reassure us on the specific
point that nothing in this measure or in the future will limit
pragmatic humanitarian engagement within Gaza, and within Israel
and Palestine. There is already a chill under way. Palestinian
reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah has never been more
important. I would hate to see anything done by this House that
would limit the scope for that dialogue and engagement.
We all have a common aim in this process. I think everyone on all
sides of the House today has indicated our clear support for
justice and peace in the middle east, but surely the way to that
peace is dialogue, and anything that limits that dialogue must be
properly ventilated and properly scrutinised. From the SNP’s
perspective, we will not stand in the way of the proposal, but we
believe it needs far better scrutiny than we have been able to do
today and will need far more scrutiny in future.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
We will start with an eight-minute time limit. I may have to take
that down, but we will start with that.
16:02:00
(Reigate) (Con)
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of
Members’ Financial Interests, which I will return to at the end
of my remarks if I do not run out of time.
First, we need to put the measure in context. The nearest
parallel is the proscription of both wings of Hezbollah. In terms
of practicality, our engagement with Lebanon is very much less
than it is with Palestine and Israel. We are unable to talk to
the four Ministries that have Hezbollah Ministers and the French
are then seen as the lead western European nation in that space.
Our relative position in the very troubled country of Lebanon—we
have made difficulties for ourselves because of the extent of the
popular support for Hezbollah in Lebanon—is significantly reduced
from that.
Of course, Hezbollah is only part of the Government of Lebanon.
The difficulty we are giving ourselves here is that the
jurisdiction of Gaza is run by Hamas. Nearly 2 million people are
administered by the local Administration, who, strangely enough,
have their own security forces. If you were responsible for
administering Gaza, you might rather need them in one form or
another, otherwise you would find organisations such as Islamic
Jihad or Islamic State providing security instead. This,
therefore, is a complex and difficult question that we have to
address. We have already taken a position on what is plainly the
stupid, illegitimate and immoral mortaring of people where you
cannot tell where the targets are, simply flying weapons over the
wall, because you do not have the capacity to engage in that
targeting of what would be legitimate targets under international
law as resistance. Of course those acts are illegitimate. That is
why they have been proscribed.
However, we need to be careful because people do have a right to
resist, and we must understand that we are talking about an
occupied people. The history is very long, going back to the
Balfour declaration in 1917. We delivered half of the Balfour
declaration, perhaps one of the great moral projects of the 20th
century, where we gave the Jewish people, who had suffered the
most appalling, the greatest crime in human history in the
holocaust, as well as the pogroms and all the other oppression in
European history and elsewhere, a safe place in the state of
Israel. Obviously half of that declaration is undelivered—the bit
that said it would not be done at the cost of the rights of the
people already there. Of course it has been. That is undone. That
is why we have the Balfour project, led by our former
consul-general in Jerusalem, Sir Vincent Feen, who is working
away to draw attention to the fact that the work is half done and
the United Kingdom still has to deliver the Balfour declaration.
There is a duty on all of us to try to ensure that we
assist—perhaps for the 21st century—a great process of
reconciliation between the Palestinian and Jewish Israeli people
to enable it to be an example of a great moral project where
people come together to forge a future together. That is my
hope.
My personal position is that the two-state solution is long gone.
In the end, this will be resolved only by the peoples coming
together, with us enabling and helping that to happen. I fear
that the order does precisely the opposite.
Mr Harper
I do not want to misunderstand my hon. Friend. I have listened to
him carefully. I agree with his last point about Britain wanting
to encourage the Palestinian and the Israeli people to come
together and live in harmony. When he was talking about the
indiscriminate attacks that Hamas sends into Israel, he seemed to
say that the only problem with them was that they were not more
accurately targeted to kill certain Israelis, that they
indiscriminately killed other Israelis, and that, if they
targeted the weapons more accurately, that would be sort of okay.
Did I hear him correctly? I fear that I may have misunderstood
him but can he put me right? If that is so, I find that an
offensive and extraordinary thing to say.
Let us be careful what we are addressing on that narrow point.
Under international law, you have a legal right to resist. Not
only is the use of those weapons unlawful because they are
untargeted and indiscriminate; it is also fantastically stupid
because it gives the Israelis’ argument about the threat they
face from the Palestinian people its raison d’être. I deplore
violence of any kind from the Palestinians because they are going
to get smashed if they try to resist under international law. It
is completely the wrong thing to do. That is why I want to work
to give Palestinians assistance in finding a route to justice
through using the law and the moral and legal authority that the
Palestinian position has. Violence is a road to nowhere. That is
why it ought to be condemned in terms of practicality as well as
under the law where use of it is indiscriminate. But there is a
position where resistance is allowed. For me, that “but” is
wholly qualified by its stupidity, its inappropriateness and its
uselessness in furthering the Palestinian cause. However, let us
get back to the balance between the two sides.
The Israelis have been in gross breach of the fourth Geneva
convention ever since the occupation of the territories in 1967,
and the ensuing settlements are a grievous breach of
international law. What has the United Kingdom done about it?
What is the United Kingdom going to do about it? This is building
the two-state solution out of existence; it is also taking
territory that does not belong to Israel in a way that is
proscribed by the Geneva conventions that came into force after
the second world war.
Let us look at the contemporary position. Six non-governmental
organisations have been proscribed by Israel. As I understand it,
no evidence has yet been given to the British Government as to
why that has happened. Why not? United Nations Relief and Works
Agency funding from the United Kingdom is going from £70 million
to £20 million, which puts a huge responsibility on civil society
to try to make up the difference because of the desperate,
desperate situation in Gaza. What will the motion do? It will
have a terrible, chilling effect on putting anything into Gaza,
because Gaza is administered by the organisation that we are
about to proscribe.
As I understand it, my hon. Friend’s central argument is that by
enacting this measure we will make it more difficult for the
United Kingdom to interact with Hamas or other organisations to
pursue the peace process, or for NGOs from the United Kingdom to
provide humanitarian support within Gaza. Is that argument not
undermined by the fact that this measure has already been in
place in the whole European Union, in the United States and among
a number of other significant players in the middle east conflict
for several years?
No, because the motion goes further: it leaves “support”
undefined, so it will be up to the courts to define what support
means. The European Union’s measures are very specific about
finance and the movement of money, which can be traced and
followed. This measure is much more far-reaching. We do not know
exactly how far-reaching it will be or what its effect will
be.
In the forthcoming vote of the UN General Assembly on the status
of Jerusalem—a resolution sponsored by the Palestinians and the
Jordanians—we appear to be about to change the long-standing
British position of supporting the status quo in Jerusalem. The
United Kingdom is apparently going to abstain; according to
reports made to me, it is also actively working to get other
countries to abstain and change their position. Why is all that
happening? Let us look at the statement that the Israeli Minister
of Foreign Affairs put out on 19 November:
“The announcement anticipated today is the conclusion of an
intimate and successful dialogue between Israel and the United
Kingdom led by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs”
and
“the security services”.
This will have a chilling effect on effective assistance to Gaza.
The double standards of the west’s position will be even more
visible around the world. I say to my right hon. Friend the
Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who spoke about supporting
the moderates: given who had the majority on the Palestinian
Legislative Council when it was last elected in 2006, how many of
the Palestinians does he want to identify as extremist? If the
purpose of our policy should be to undermine and remove the
reasons for turning to violence, give Palestinians a route to
justice that is legal and moral, and lead towards a negotiated
settlement, what will be the effect of applying today’s measure
to the organisation that received most support the last time
there was an election in Palestine?
Do I support Hamas? That is a little unlikely, speaking as the
gay chair of the all-party parliamentary humanist group. But have
I taken the trouble to try to understand political Islam? Yes, I
have. When I was Chair of the Select Committee on Foreign
Affairs, we completed an inquiry on it; our report is called
“‘Political Islam’, and the Muslim Brotherhood Review”. I spent
20 years getting to know and trying to understand these people.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Newark () said:
“I cannot reach into the heart of that individual”.
I say to him: no, but you deserve to make every effort to
understand the movement around that individual and whether it
relates to why he came to that perspective.
We owe it to ourselves to understand the perspective of political
Islamists in order that we can try to draw them in and draw them
away from violence. I fear that the motion will do precisely the
opposite.
16:14:00
(Caerphilly) (Lab)
I support the proscription of Hamas in its entirety as a
terrorist organisation. Every protection and reassurance must be
given to the Jewish community in this country, and antisemitism
has no place in our society. I also appreciate that since we have
left the European Union, the EU’s ban on Hamas in its entirety is
no longer in place, and we must have an alternative measure in
this country. However, I want to ask the Minister a number of
questions. First, what advice did the Home Office receive from
the Proscription Review Group? Was it comprehensive advice, or
was there simply a feeling—which was judged by other means—that
action of this kind was necessary?
I am also concerned about the fact that there appears to have
been very little consultation, if any, with organisations and
bodies that are engaged in conflict resolution efforts and
humanitarian work in the occupied Palestinian territories and in
Gaza in particular. Aid agencies such as Oxfam, Medical Aid for
Palestinians and Save the Children do excellent work in Gaza, and
the nature of their humanitarian work means that they have no
choice but to engage with civilian agencies in Gaza which are
under the control of Hamas. Indeed, it is impossible to enter
Gaza without contact with Hamas agencies. In this context, I want
to refer particularly to a non-governmental organisation, based
in Britain, called IDEALS.
Since 2012, IDEALS has been supporting the development of a local
limb reconstruction service in Gaza. Training fellowships at
King’s College Hospital here in London have been provided for
three orthopaedic surgeons, and there have been training
fellowships for nurses and physiotherapists, helping to establish
the multidisciplinary team that is required to provide such
complex, long-term care in Gaza. Specialists from the hospital
have also visited Gaza on many occasions to work alongside local
colleagues, continue the training process, and provide clinical
care for patients. That good work must continue. I am sure we are
all united in supporting it, and I think it would be quite wrong
if anything were done here that might impede its
continuation.
I know that the Home Secretary and the Minister have no wish to
obstruct the work of respected, effective charitable
organisations such as IDEALS, Oxfam and Save the Children, so
will the Minister now give a commitment that such agencies will
not be inadvertently impacted by this designation? I heard what
he said earlier about governmental support for aid programmes in
Gaza, but I am particularly concerned about non-governmental
organisations, particularly smaller ones.
Dr Whitford
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that if there had to be
an individual process rather than a general exemption for
humanitarian work, that might be beyond some of the projects that
are running in Gaza, and they would simply be lost?
These issues clearly need to be examined, and that is why I
regret the lack of prior consultation and discussion. I ask the
Minister to give a commitment that they will be looked into in
great detail, and that that will be done in partnership with the
organisations that could be impacted. I also ask him to give a
cast-iron commitment to ensure that the good work to which a
number of Members have referred will indeed be continued, and
that there exists no impediment of any kind that will cause a
material obstruction.
16:18:00
(Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I obviously support the Government on this important matter. I
also pay tribute to the Opposition for the sensible approach that
they have taken. Some important points have been made. The leader
of the Scottish National party—or rather the Scottish National
party spokesman, the hon. Member for Stirling ()—[Laughter.] Well, perhaps he
will be the next leader; we will see! Anyway, I think that he may
have been trying a little too hard to disagree while agreeing,
but he made some important points. However, I think the Minister
went some considerable way to addressing those points in his
opening remarks, and I also point to the decisions of other
Governments around the world that broadly mirror what we have
done and their continued and much needed humanitarian support and
aid for the people of Gaza, and indeed more generally in the
region. We all would absolutely—100%—want to see that continue,
but of course this measure is incredibly important.
I was somewhat disappointed by the speech of my hon. Friend the
Member for Reigate (). He seemed as blind as a
flittermouse to the facts on the ground. He talked about
occupation, which of course ended in Gaza in 2005; there is a
debate to be had about the continuing restrictions but, on the
actual occupation, Israel left Gaza in 2005. He talked about how
we had created and made good on Balfour, but seemed to forget the
other part of the story as to why the other elements of it had
not been made good on and the culpability of Israel’s neighbours
in preventing the creation of a viable Arab state at the time of
the creation of the state of Israel, so there was something
lacking there. I was also slightly confused, as was my right hon.
Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), about his
comments around weapons not being targeted enough and making them
therefore legitimate to use against targets in Israel. I am sure
he did not mean that, and I tried to decipher his response to my
right hon. Friend but am still a bit confused about what he was
saying.
Then of course there was a bit of an attack on the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs in Israel, or so it seemed, which again is what
too often happens in this debate: instead of having a
conversation about what is a despotic antisemitic terror
organisation, we again get back to talking about the activities
of the Israeli Government, in this case a press release from the
MFA. I think more important are comments by senior Hamas
officials who say they want to cross the border and reach into
the hearts of Jews and Israelis and rip them out. Those are the
comments I am more interested in, rather than some press release
from the MFA.
First, I of course absolutely condemn violence—that is the only
point I make on that. Secondly, it is hardly an attack on the
Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs to read out a tweet by the
Israeli Foreign Minister.
I was commenting on the application of that in the context of why
we have reached this decision in the UK today; that was my
criticism. But I will not focus my comments on the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Israel, because we are here to talk about the
terror organisation Hamas.
Comments have been made today about the targeting of British
nationals and the threat to Brits, and we saw with the murder of
Eli Kay this weekend how attacks from Hamas are targeted
indiscriminately not just at Israelis but Brits in the country. I
myself have spent time in Israel in bomb shelters as rockets have
rained over from Gaza; it is not a pleasant experience, but
Israelis are at least to a great degree protected from that.
(Wimbledon) (Con)
I have been listening carefully to the debate and this is an
extremely complex issue, but does my hon. Friend agree that, in
essence, those who incite terror are as culpable as those who
implement terror, and that is really what we are discussing this
afternoon?
rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds, let me say that I hope
that even if such important interventions are taken, hon. Members
will stick to the eight-minute limit, or else I will not be able
to give a fair allocation to everybody.
As my constituency near-neighbour, Madam Deputy Speaker, you know
how much I like the sound of my own voice—I am not alone in this
place in that to be fair—but I will try to limit myself. My hon.
Friend’s comment is absolutely right. The crux is that this is an
antisemitic, despotic terrorist dictatorship, effectively, in
Gaza, guilty of war crimes, targeting civilians and hiding behind
its own civilians. That is why I entirely support this measure,
which the Minister put across in a very measured and thoughtful
way, and I appreciate that.
The only sadness, when we get to the conclusion, is that life for
Gazans will continue to be pretty horrendous. We must all work
and strive towards a resolution that improves the lot of everyone
in the region, especially those in Gaza who have to live under
this regime and under the other restrictions that are placed on
the people of Gaza. We have heard about the summary executions
and the treatment of women and homosexuals. I recently read about
the experience of a young gay man called Hamza, who described
what had happened to him at the hands of Hamas:
“They arrested me, hanged me from the ceiling, beat me up and
interrogated me for five days”.
They then made him sign confessions saying that he had had sexual
relations with other Gazans who happened to be supporters of
Fatah. Sadly, all of that will continue, as will the
brutalisation of women, the summary executions and the trumped-up
allegations of collaboration with the state of Israel. I welcome
this measure today, but I do so with a great degree of sadness
that life will continue in such a way for Gazans. I hope that all
of us in this place will do everything we can to strive towards a
peaceful resolution of the conflict in that part of the
world.
16:25:00
(Leeds Central) (Lab)
I support this measure for the reason set out by the shadow Home
Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen ()—namely, that there is
no doubt that the political wing of Hamas supports its military
operations. As we have heard, these operations include attacks on
Israeli civilians that are completely unacceptable.
We are all opposed to any use of indiscriminate violence in the
middle east, but there has been a lot of it, with a terrible loss
of life as a result. If we are honest, however, these repeated
outbreaks of violence are the consequence of the absence of a
political process. We all support a two-state solution—a safe and
secure Israel living alongside a Palestinian state—but the shape
of that state, which is needed to bring an end to the terrible
suffering of the Palestinian people to which the hon. Member for
Brigg and Goole () referred, is becoming less
and less clear. Some argue that it has disappeared because of the
growth of settlement building and annexation. The truth is that
there is no peace process at the moment. In my view, that is
because of an absence of courageous political leadership on both
sides of the conflict.
I have always been greatly struck by the parallels between the
middle east and Northern Ireland. Progress was eventually made to
bring the Northern Ireland conflict to an end when the
leaders realised that courage was required to find a different
way forward. In the case of the Provisional IRA, its leaders
eventually said to their troops, “We are not going to bomb
Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom; we have to lay down
our bombs and bullets and engage in a political process.”
Similarly, the Unionists took the step to sit side by side with
their former sworn enemies. That took courage and a lot of quiet,
patient and at times secret diplomacy. The Minister said that the
Government’s policy was not to talk to Hamas. That was the
Government’s stated policy in 1972 in respect of the IRA, but we
now know that the Home Secretary met and in secret to see whether
a way forward could be found.
I am mentioning this because it is relevant to second of the two
issues that I want to raise with the Minister, about the
consequences of the order and how it will be applied in specific
circumstances to specific organisations. The first issue relates
to medical and humanitarian work; the second relates to the
activities of groups such as Forward Thinking, a widely respected
organisation that is trying to bring people together to find a
peaceful way forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly () talked about the work of
IDEALS, and other organisations have been referred to in the
course of the debate. We know that in the case of IDEALS, NHS
volunteers from all over the country have gone repeatedly to Gaza
to advise very capable Palestinian surgeons—I have visited the
main hospital in Gaza—on the management of the most complex
injuries that arise from bombs, bullets and blasts. There is now
more capacity than previously existed, precisely because of that
work. The question that I want to put to the Minister is: will
NHS staff be able to carry on doing that work without fear of
prosecution? It has been pointed out that they have to talk to
the authorities there in order to be able to do that work.
Dr Whitford
Does the right hon. Gentleman also recognise that because of the
blockade it is impossible for doctors in Gaza to get out and
train, and that we therefore have to bring the training to
them?
I recognise that, and it is one of the consequences of the
blockade that has affected the people of Gaza for a very long
time.
Secondly, what about peacebuilding organisations such as Forward
Thinking? Over the years, as the Minister may be aware, Forward
Thinking has brought leaders of the parties to the conflict, from
Israel and from the Palestinian side, to Britain and Northern
Ireland to meet former foes who talk them through the journey
they made that led from armed conflict to the Good Friday
agreement. That has included leaders from Hamas. I have seen the
work of Forward Thinking at first hand, and I have participated
in some of it. It is deeply impressive and, in my view, very
important.
The Home Office document, “Proscribed terrorist groups or
organisations”, published in 2015, sets out the offence and draws
attention to section 12(4), which
“provides a defence, in the case of a private meeting addressed
by a member of a proscribed organisation, if a person can prove
that they had no reasonable cause to believe that the address
would support the proscribed organisation or advance its
terrorist activities.
Further, the explanatory notes to the Terrorism Act 2000”—
the explanatory notes are designed to help the courts and
prosecutors in deciding whether it is in the public interest to
prosecute—
“explain that the defence in section 12(4) is intended to permit
the arrangement of ‘genuinely benign’ meetings…designed to
encourage a designated group to engage in a peace process or
facilitate delivery of humanitarian aid where this does not
involve knowingly transferring assets to a designated
organisation.”
There is also the question of journalists. On reading the
guidance, it seems to me that the activities I have highlighted
would not be caught by this order, but I look to the Minister for
reassurance.
None of the individuals involved will want to fall foul of the
law. I recognise what is said in the Home Office document but,
for the kinds of organisations that a number of Members have
raised, it is not a satisfactory answer to leave people in the
following position: “Well, there is a defence. Hey, if you are
prosecuted, you can go to court and advance the defence. You may
win, you may not. You may be found guilty.”
Will the Crown Prosecution Service now produce guidelines on the
implications of this kind of order for the activities to which I
have drawn attention? I am aware that the independent reviewer of
terrorism legislation suggested such guidance in 2018, and I
understand that in October 2020 the Home Secretary said she had
written to the Attorney General to ask her to discuss the
question of such guidance with the Director of Public
Prosecutions.
Can the Minister tell us how those discussions are going? That
would help to reassure Members who want the good work of Forward
Thinking to continue while supporting the order today. We have an
obligation to the staff who do the work and to the trustees of
the organisation, because what they are doing is self-evidently
good and important work, and I hope it will be able to
continue.
(Richmond Park) (LD)
rose—
(Strangford) (DUP)
rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I would like to call the Minister at 4.45 pm, so I ask the two
remaining speakers to divide the time between themselves. It is
about five minutes each.
16:33:00
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will keep my remarks
short.
The Government should undoubtedly be doing all they possibly can
to combat terrorism and stamp out antisemitism wherever they find
it. Within Gaza, Hamas’s persecution of and discrimination
against marginalised groups—including Jews, the LGBT+ community
and women—civil society organisations and democratic opposition
is abhorrent, and it is certainly true that Hamas’s attitude to
the conflict in Israel and Palestine, including its entrenched
and extremist rhetoric, its antisemitic incitement and its
refusal to recognise the state of Israel, is a significant
barrier to peace.
That was only too apparent in the dreadful terrorist attack
carried out by a Hamas operative in Jerusalem on Sunday, in which
an Israeli citizen tragically lost their life, with others
wounded. I hope that Members on both sides of the House will join
me in paying tribute to those victims and their families. Those
awful scenes underline the fact that this is a conflict, in which
peace is desperately needed. It is needed for Israeli citizens
and for Palestinians.
The military wing of Hamas is currently proscribed by the
Government and has been for nearly 20 years, and rightly so.
However, we have some concerns about the legislation before us
today. Under the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019,
jurisdiction for offences relating to proscribed organisations
was extended on an extra-territorial basis. Offences such as
these carry a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison. We are
seriously concerned that someone who meets the political wing of
Hamas for the purposes of advancing peace, in the UK or even in a
country where the political wing of Hamas is not proscribed, such
as Palestine, could still be prosecuted for it in the UK. We must
not risk criminalising those who work towards peace building and
dialogue. There is a concern among UK charities who play an
important role in working towards peace that this measure may
impact them. There is genuine confusion about what this means for
their work.
Worryingly, we have heard from such charities that the Home
Office did not conduct a consultation regarding this step. If
that is true, it is remarkably irresponsible. Those charities may
find that overnight they are criminalised, with a risk of
significant prison sentences, for work that they are currently
undertaking, and have undertaken for years. Will the Minister
commit to meeting charities such as Forward Thinking to discuss
how this may impact them? Will the Government consider exemptions
for British-based charities working on peace building and
dialogue? I hope that Members in all parts of the House agree
that it is vital that greater reassurance is provided to these
charities, so does the Minister agree that the Crown Prosecution
Service should urgently bring forward prosecutorial guidance in
England, to provide that certainty?
We also have concerns regarding the delivery of aid to Gaza;
again, it is vital that this step does not obstruct or
criminalise charities that are trying to improve the situation on
the ground in Gaza. Have the UK Government carried out any
assessment of how this might, for instance, impact the work of
the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which helps to assist
the 1.4 million refugees in Palestine by delivering education,
healthcare, and relief assistance? As we work towards peace in
the region and a two-state solution, I urge the Government to
take an approach that actively supports humanitarian and civil
society efforts within Israel and Palestine to support peace. I
hope that the Minister will consider this proposal, and I hope
that the Government will address the concerns I have raised, and
centre peace building and dialogue at the heart of their approach
to this conflict.
16:36:00
(Strangford) (DUP)
First, let me welcome the Home Secretary’s decision fully to
proscribe Hamas. Many, including myself, will argue, “Better late
than never. It is long overdue.” Hamas’s charter is unequivocal
in setting out its objective of wiping the state of Israel off
the map. Israel has a right to exist and its citizens have a
right to normal life. I am unashamedly a friend and supporter of
Israel. I supported it when I was in the Northern Ireland
Assembly, in my previous job, and I have been on the same page on
the issue in Westminster. Anyone who suggests that Hamas’s
objective is benign should take a look at its record. Since
taking over Gaza in 2006, Hamas has been responsible for four
major conflicts, the deaths of more than 6,000 civilians and
countless war crimes, not least of which is firing thousands of
rockets from Gaza into civilian areas in Israel. Hamas has also
sent incendiary balloons from Palestine into Israel, and it has
training camps where people are trained to kill, and that is what
they do.
I do not quite understand some of the comments that have been
made, but I do understand this: attacking civilian posts or
civilians is wrong. If terrorists attack military bases, that is
also wrong, and terrorists who do that deserve to have the full
weight of the law taken against them. I am the MP representing
Strangford in Northern Ireland, so obviously I understand only
too well the murdering devilment, wickedness and evilness of the
IRA; we are talking about the same wickedness and bloodthirsty
terrorists that Hamas are as well. They deserve to be proscribed,
and that is what I wish to see today.
I wish to place on record my thanks to the Israel Britain
Alliance for its tireless campaigning on this issue. This
decision will ensure that there is no longer any ambiguity about
what Hamas is or about the consequences of supporting terrorism.
Hamas glorifies atrocities and the murder of innocents—women,
children and civilians. Those in Hamas deserve no mercy for what
they have been doing over the years. This order will rightly
categorise Hamas as a terrorist organisation, without caveat. It
will force the media to properly record its designation as a
terror organisation when it is referenced. I commend the right
hon. Member for Newark () for his comments and what
he put forward, and I wholeheartedly support him in what he said.
Perhaps most significantly, the order destroys the argument used
by Hamas and some in this place to pull their punches on and
mitigate Hamas’s nefarious and deadly activities.
We must protect the democratic countries and their democratic
processes; terrorist organisations deserve to feel the full
weight of the law. They are not the same; they are two different
things—there is democracy and there is terrorism. Terrorism
always needs to be put down and Hamas needs put down. It is not
difficult for me to understand how Hamas’s military and Hamas’s
politics are one and the same. I believe they are.
Will the Minister confirm to the House whether the proscription
in this order will automatically cover Hamas’s offshoot
organisations—many suppression of terrorism orders come forward
and another organisation always comes forward—or will we need to
follow this process each time there is a name change and so on? I
welcome what the Minister has said and look forward to the
proscription of Hamas and every organisation like it.
16:40:00
The Home Secretary and I strongly believe that the proscription
of Hamas IDQ should be extended to cover the entire organisation.
Subject to the agreement of this House and the other place, the
order will come into force on Friday 26 November.
Before continuing, I extend my thanks and pay tribute to the
shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (), for the tone and
content of what he said, and for his support and that of his
right hon. and hon. colleagues for the order. I join in the
praise that he rightly gave to our counter-terrorism police, the
rest of the policing family, the agencies and everybody who works
so hard to keep us safe.
I shall try to address what the shadow Home Secretary said,
starting specifically with the proscription review group. As he
will know, it is a cross-Government group, chaired by the Home
Office, that supports the Home Secretary in her decision making
on proscription issues and remains active.
I absolutely reassure the hon. Member for Caerphilly () of the rigour of the process
on this and every occasion. We constantly keep the list of
proscribed organisations under review. The evidence for that is
that over the past two years we have proscribed the extreme
right-wing terrorist groups Sonnenkrieg Division, Feuerkrieg
Division and Atomwaffen Division, as well as the militant
white-supremacist group called the Base. We have also added four
aliases to the list of proscribed organisations, as well as this
order to extend the proscription of Hamas.
There was a question about whether there should be more
consultation in respect of a proscription. Proscription is an
Executive tool based on assessment from security departments and
across Government. The proscription regime itself is scrutinised
by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, who makes
annual reports on how the Government use their counter-terrorism
powers. Of course, in debating this order today, we have an
opportunity to consider it specifically.
Successive incumbent independent reviewers of terrorism
legislation have all argued for the introduction of timeliness in
respect of proscription orders; are the British Government
considering that?
We keep proscription—including not only whether organisations
that are not proscribed should be but whether the proscription of
those that are remains the correct and proportionate
approach—under constant review.
The shadow Home Secretary and others asked implicitly—in fact,
the hon. Member for Stirling (), who spoke for the SNP, asked
explicitly—why now? It is because we keep the response to
terrorism under continual review. It is entirely appropriate that
we take all available opportunities to strengthen the UK’s
response to domestic and international threats. The extension of
the proscription of Hamas is part of that response. As I have
said, the group in its entirety is assessed to be concerned with
terrorism, with the lines that the Government had previously
drawn between its constituent parts now being assessed as
artificial.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Newark () spoke movingly and with
great passion about the terrible case of 26-year-old Eli Kay.
Ultimately, it is a reminder of what we are discussing here—the
end result of terror and why it is essential that our Government
and Governments around the world be constantly attentive to the
threat of terrorism and do what is required to mitigate that
threat.
A number of colleagues across the House spoke about the position
of NGOs and related matters. Implicitly, the question is, would
this stop the work of UK NGOs or others in location? The shadow
Home Secretary asked about that, as did the hon. Member for
Caerphilly (), the right hon. Member for
Leeds Central () and others. The Government
recently published guidance to support our NGOs to operate
overseas in high-risk jurisdictions while complying with the
counter-terrorism legislative framework and sanctions regime. A
specific section refers to proscription, including how to operate
around what are known as sections 11 to 13 offences. That is
guidance, and we encourage our NGOs to seek legal advice in
relation to specific activities and ensure compliance with
terrorism legislation.
The UK will continue to work with international partners and NGOs
to support the people of Gaza, including through our
long-standing support of the United Nations—
I think we would all be grateful for clarity on one specific
issue. If those of us who want to continue to engage with people
whom we know are members of Hamas and who are in leadership
positions—in order to try to draw them into peace negotiations,
the unification of the Palestinian position and all the other
things that we should be trying to do as parliamentarians engaged
in that process—have made it clear that we have no support for
Hamas as a movement, will we be at risk of prosecution?
I think my hon. Friend will appreciate that I am not in a
position, standing at the Dispatch Box, to give guarantees about
unspecified activities in which he or others may or may not be
involved in the future. This is an order specifically to
proscribe this organisation in its entirety. The legislation is
clear about the activities that that covers, including support
for the organisation, and particular ways of using emblems and so
on in support of it, or in ways that would reasonably be
considered to be in support of it, and I direct him to that
guidance.
Let me come back to what I was saying about NGOs. We will
continue to work with international partners and NGOs to support
the people in Gaza. It is important to stress that a number of
donor partners already list Hamas in its entirety and still
continue to deliver significant humanitarian development
programmes in the region. Specifically on the point raised—not
with me, but with her colleague, the hon. Member for Stirling
()—by the hon. Member for Central
Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) about her charity work on breast cancer,
for which I commend her, and more widely on the position of
smaller NGOs, I am happy to follow that up with her separately if
that is helpful.
Finally, a number of colleagues raised the overall position of
the middle east peace process. The UK’s long-standing position on
that has not changed. We support a negotiated settlement leading
to a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and
sovereign Palestinian state, based on the 1967 borders, with
agreed land swaps, Jerusalem as the shared capital of both
states, and on a just, fair, agreed and realistic settlement for
refugees. Proscription is not targeted at any particular faith,
social grouping or ideological motivation. It is based on clear
evidence that an organisation is concerned with terrorism as
assessed by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre.
We are clear that, based on the available evidence, it is
appropriate for the Home Secretary to exercise her discretion to
proscribe Hamas in its entirety. It is our duty to support the
order to protect the public from the noxious ideologies that
Hamas holds. That being the case, I urge hon. and right hon.
Members across the House to support the order.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations)
(Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2021, which was laid before this House
on 19 November, be approved.
|
