Prevention and
Suppression of Terrorism
The Minister for Security ()
I beg to move,
That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations)
(Amendment) Order 2024, which was laid before this House on 15
January, be approved.
I am grateful to the House for considering this draft order,
which will finally see Hizb ut-Tahrir proscribed. The events of 7
October will be permanently ingrained on our minds. What Hamas
did that day was barbaric. It was evil. Who can erase the images
that we saw of mothers crying over their blood-soaked beds with
their children missing, of teenagers gunned down at a festival of
peace, or of women abducted, raped and slaughtered? Who among us
could fail to be appalled by such depravity or to still feel the
pain of those whose loved ones are hostages? Who could stay
silent in the face of the worst pogrom against Jews on any day
since the holocaust?
In the aftermath of 7 October, communities across the United
Kingdom came together to condemn these vile acts and to stand
with British Jews in their hour of grief. Not everyone, however,
reacted with sorrow. Instead of horror, Hizb ut-Tahrir responded
to the murder of civilians with elation. Instead of condemnation,
it lavished Hamas with praise.
I want to make something very clear: I am a champion of freedom
of speech, and I have no issue with people saying things that I
regard as insensitive, uninformed or wrong, but this is
different. Free speech includes neither the promotion of
terrorism nor the celebration of terrorist acts. It is not
acceptable to describe Hamas as the “heroes” of Palestine or the
events of 7 October as a “long-awaited victory”. It is not
acceptable to refer to the killing of Jewish tourists by an
Egyptian police officer as
“a simple example of what should be done towards the Jews”.
It is not acceptable to call for so-called Muslim armies to rise
up and carry out similar acts.
Hizb ut-Tahrir has antisemitism at its very core. It rejects
democracy and engages in vile homophobia. As an organisation, it
does not just reject British values; it seeks to undermine them.
We will not let groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir abuse our freedoms.
We will never tolerate the promotion or encouragement of
terrorism. We have zero tolerance for antisemitism. Hizb
ut-Tahrir must be proscribed.
Before I come to discuss the specifics of the order, I will set
out some background on the proscription power. Currently, 79
terrorist organisations are proscribed under the Terrorism Act
2000. For an organisation to be proscribed, the Government must
believe that it is concerned in terrorism as set out in section 3
of the Act. If the statutory test is met, the Home Secretary must
consider the proportionality of proscription and decide whether
to exercise their discretion.
Proscription is a powerful tool with severe penalties,
criminalising membership and invitations of support for
organisations. It also supports other disruptive activity
including immigration disruptions and terrorist financing orders.
In short, the resources of a proscribed organisation are
terrorist property and therefore liable to be seized.
A decision to proscribe is taken only after great care and
consideration, given its wide-ranging impact. It must be approved
by both Houses. Part 2 of the 2000 Act contains the proscription
offences in sections 11 to 13. An organisation is proscribed if
it is listed in schedule 2 to the Act. Article 2 of the order
will add Hizb ut-Tahrir to the list in schedule 2 as a new
entry.
We have carefully considered all the evidence. Hizb ut-Tahrir is
concerned in terrorism. With the House’s consent, it will be
proscribed, including all regional branches such as Hizb
ut-Tahrir Britain.
Although I am unable to comment on specific intelligence, I can
provide the House with a summary of the group’s activities. Hizb
ut-Tahrir is an international political organisation with a
footprint in at least 32 countries, including the United Kingdom,
the United States, Canada and Australia. Its long-term goal is to
establish an expansionist caliphate ruled under Islamic law, with
no fixed borders, seeking new territories to occupy in the name
of jihad. That is its stated aim. Hizb ut-Tahrir’s headquarters
and central media office are in Beirut, and its ideology and
strategy are co-ordinated centrally.
The British branch, Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain, was established in
1986. It is afforded autonomy to operate in its local
environment, but it is important to emphasise that it is part of
a coherent international movement, and recognises the leadership
of Hizb ut-Tahrir. The decision to proscribe therefore relates to
Hizb ut-Tahrir, including all its regional branches. Any
distinction between them is artificial.
There is evidence that Hizb ut-Tahrir is concerned in terrorism.
Its central media office and several of its middle eastern
branches have celebrated and praised the barbaric terrorist
attacks on Israel and other
nations’ citizens carried out by Hamas, which, as Members will be
aware, are already a proscribed organisation.
(Orkney and Shetland)
(LD)
Is the Minister aware that Zeyno Baran of the Hudson Institute
has observed that the British chapter of Hizb ut-Tahrir is the
“nerve centre” of the international movement? As is so often the
case when dealing with terror organisations, the responsibility
to protect our own citizens extends to citizens in other
countries as well.
The right hon. Member is absolutely right that the unity of this
organisation means that one branch cannot be separated from
another. The UK branch is important when taking down the network
around the world. That is why, as I will come to, this action is
supported not just here but around the world.
As I mentioned earlier, recent activity includes an article
attributed to Hizb ut-Tahrir’s Egyptian branch, which referred to
the killing of Jewish tourists by an Egyptian police officer
as
“a simple example of what should be done towards the Jews”.
The British branch is supportive of—and indeed, subservient
to—its global leadership and policy positions. It demonstrates a
hatred not just of Israel but of all Jews.
Its promotion and encouragement of terrorism is inspired by an
abhorrent antisemitic ideology.
Hizb ut-Tahrir has frequently referred to Hamas as the heroes of
Palestine. Hamas are not heroes. Those who perpetrated the
attacks on 7 October are monsters. Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain
published an article on its website that described the 7 October
attacks as a long-awaited victory that
“ignited a wave of joy and elation amongst Muslims globally”.
It is the Government’s view that the content included in that
article and others like it betrays Hizb ut-Tahrir and Hizb
ut-Tahrir Britain’s true ideology and beliefs. Hizb ut-Tahrir has
regularly engaged in homophobic and antisemitic discourse. It
rejects democracy, and its aims bear similarities to those of
terrorist groups, including Daesh, which is already proscribed.
Internationally, Hizb ut-Tahrir plays the mood music to which
other terrorists dance.
This proscription will serve as a reminder that the United
Kingdom does not and will never tolerate the promotion or
encouragement of terrorism. It will send the message that
promoting or encouraging Hamas’s sickening attack on 7 October is
utterly unacceptable and at odds with the values of this country.
By proscribing, we will reassert our unwavering commitment to
fighting antisemitism, which has increased unacceptably in the
United Kingdom and globally in recent months.
To the Jewish community in the United Kingdom, I say this: “We
will always protect British citizens. We will do whatever it
takes to protect you.” To British Muslim parents and to many
mosques across the country, I say this: “We will remove this
menace that claims to act in your name. Hizb ut-Tahrir does not
represent Islam or Muslims. You are a crucial part of our nation
and your Government is on your side.”
Before I conclude, I will make a couple of further points. First,
the decision to proscribe is supported by our international
partners. Hizb ut-Tahrir is banned in many countries around the
world, including in Germany, and restrictions are placed on its
activities in Austria. This is an organisation that does not
believe in borders or the nation state, and that calls for the
overthrow of every Government in the Islamic world. It has
declared the custodian of the two holy places in Saudi Arabia,
the Khadim al-Haramayn, an apostate, and has been banned in
Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Following coup
attempts in Jordan and Egypt, it has been banned in those
countries as well. Its call for the caliphate is a colonial
imperialist ambition from another age and gives legitimacy to
others, including ISIS and al-Qaeda. When al-Nabhani split from
the Muslim Brotherhood to found this organisation in 1953, it was
to a great extent because he did not believe in its
incrementalist policy of using democracy, but instead turned to
violence and radicalising Muslim militaries to establish a single
expansionist Islamist empire. This is an organisation calling for
the conquest of India, Greece, Spain and France—anywhere, in
fact, where Muslim armies once trod, even if that was over 1,000
years ago.
Let us not forget the impact of Hizb ut-Tahrir in the United
Kingdom. One of its original leaders subsequently went on to set
up al-Muhajiroun, a pernicious organisation, now also proscribed,
with links to many of the perpetrators of Islamist-inspired
attacks in recent years. We are taking this action to stop the
pain and loss caused to countless families across our country who
have lost loved ones to this cult. This proscription is important
to protecting all communities across our country, and to standing
with our allies and partners in nations from Indonesia to
Morocco.
Proscription is a powerful tool. It will significantly hamper
Hizb ut-Tahrir’s operations in the United Kingdom, and damage its
activities and support for branches in other parts of the world.
The United Kingdom must not be a hub for global terrorism: not
today, not tomorrow, not ever. It will now be a criminal offence
for a person to: belong to Hizb ut-Tahrir; invite or express
support for Hizb ut-Tahrir; arrange a meeting in support of Hizb
ut-Tahrir; and wear clothing, carry or display articles in public
in such a way as to arouse reasonable suspicion that the
individual is a member of, or a supporter of, Hizb ut-Tahrir. The
penalties for conviction of proscription offences can be a
maximum of 14 years in prison and/or an unlimited fine.
The first duty of Government is to keep our people safe, to guard
the homes of our friends and fellow citizens, and to discourage
any from going down the path of radicalisation that destroys
lives. Nothing matters more. It is a tremendous responsibility
and one that we approach with the utmost seriousness. The fight
against terrorism demands constant vigilance. When there is a
clear need for action to support that vital mission, we will not
hesitate. I therefore urge the House to support this proscription
order. It is a proportionate response to the promotion and
encouragement of terrorism. It is a justified response to calls
for violence and disorder, and it is necessary to defend our
values and to protect all the communities of our great
country.
12.02pm
(Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I thank the Security Minister for what he has said, and his
colleagues at the Home Office for briefing the shadow Home
Secretary and me ahead of this debate. Today’s proscription order
is underpinned by the exceptional men and women who serve in our
intelligence and security services in Government and in our
police. They work tirelessly to keep our country safe. We are
extremely fortunate to have them.
Keeping our country safe is the first duty of Government and a
common cause that we share and treat with the utmost seriousness.
On that basis, it is vital that the Government and the Opposition
work together in the national interest on these crucial issues.
As the Minister laid out, the order will amend schedule 2 of the
Terrorism Act 2000 to add Hizb ut-Tahrir to the list of
proscribed organisations. Doing so will make it a criminal
offence to belong to Hizb ut-Tahrir, to engage in activities such
as attending meetings, to promote support for the group, or to
display its logo. After years of serious and increasing concerns
about Hizb ut-Tahrir’s activity both internationally and in the
UK, the Opposition strongly support its proscription. It is a
necessary and proportionate step to effectively counter its
hateful extremism and divisive rhetoric which threatens the
safety and security of our country.
Proscription of this international terrorist organisation comes
after other countries, including Germany, had already banned it.
Hizb ut-Tahrir is being proscribed now because of escalating
activity in the aftermath of Hamas’s barbaric terrorist attack
on Israel Unlike other
Muslim groups in the UK who condemned these attacks, Hizb
ut-Tahrir Britain glorified as “heroes” the Hamas terrorists who
revelled in acts of indiscriminate violence against civilians. In
the aftermath of 7 October there was deep sorrow and outrage
among the British people, shared with the Israeli people; but
Hizb ut-Tahrir boasted of its “euphoria” on the news of that
appalling and tragic loss of life. There is no place on Britain’s
streets for vile antisemitism. There is no place on Britain’s
streets for those who incite violence and glorify terrorism.
There is no place on Britain’s streets for Hizb ut-Tahrir. This
terrorist group peddles hate, glorifies violence, and is not only
hostile to our values but hostile to the common tenets of
humanity.
There is nothing new about the divisive and poisonous rhetoric of
Hizb ut-Tahrir, which has been widely recorded for over two
decades in the UK, long before the attacks of 7 October.
Organisations such as the Community Security trust, the
Antisemitism Policy Trust and the Union of Jewish Students have
long raised serious concerns about Hizb ut-Tahrir’s antisemitism,
alongside its misogynistic and homophobic hate speech, which
provide a channel for extremism. That is why previous Prime
Ministers, Home Secretaries and Security Ministers have
considered proscribing Hizb ut-Tahrir, but its activities were
not recognised as sufficient under the definition of terrorism in
section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 until now.
Given the amount of time for which these matters have been
debated and considered, I should be grateful if the Minister,
when he responds, said whether he thinks there are lessons to be
learned about the length of time that it has taken to proscribe
Hizb ut-Tahrir. Will he also say whether he believes that the
current proscription process is agile enough to counter threats
to our national security robustly, and whether he agrees that a
bespoke proscription mechanism for state-sponsored
organisations—which Labour has already called for—is now
required? Countering threats to our national security requires
joined-up, cross-Government working, but the counter-extremism
strategy has not been updated since 2015, with important elements
of policy involving community cohesion now the responsibility of
the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.
Given the significance of these matters, I should be grateful if
the Minister told the House when the Government will provide a
new definition of hateful extremism. Can he also tell us when his
Department will update the counter- extremism strategy, an update
that has been called for by the shadow Home Secretary, my right
hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford
()?
Proscribing Hizb ut-Tahrir is the right thing to do for our
national security. For too long the public have been exposed to
its extremist ideology, its glorification of terrorist activity,
and its core aim of overthrowing our democratic system of
government to replace it with an Islamist theocracy. If left
alone, extremism can and will spread insidiously and seep deeply
into our national conversation. No Government must ever relent in
their determination to ensure that we are always one step ahead
of those who seek to harm us or to undermine our way of life.
This House must always be on the side of the public whom we
strive to serve and protect, and that is why we strongly support
this proscription order.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. I note that there is some interest in this debate. It must
end by 1.18 pm, so I ask Members to be mindful of the
contributions that they make.12.09pm
(Brigg and Goole) (Con)
As I speak in this debate, I will have in mind the 136 hostages
who are still held by Hamas, including Eli Sharabi. Several
colleagues and I met his brother-in-law, Steve, in the House
yesterday.
I welcome what both the Minister and the shadow Minister said on
this subject, and I disagreed with nothing. I thank the
organisations that have campaigned on this issue over the years,
including the UJS and the Antisemitism Policy Trust, which is
ably led by Danny Stone—he has long campaigned on this and I
congratulate them all on their efforts, which have now paid
off.
My only slight point of disagreement with what has been said is
that, once again, I voice my support for the proscription of the
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is behind Hezbollah,
Hamas and, of course, the Houthis. This is a debate of consensus,
so I will leave that for another day.
As the Minister said, Hizb ut-Tahrir is an antisemitic, racist
organisation that promotes and encourages terrorism. As both
Front Benchers said, it openly celebrated the appalling pogroms
of 7 October and has described Hamas as “heroes.” They are not
heroes; they are murderers and rapists, for which they should be
called out by everyone. Hizb ut-Tahrir is an explicitly
antisemitic group and has targeted gay people, women and Muslims
who do not share its perverse interpretation of Islam. It is
right to ban this group, but will that ban include its pernicious
online activities?
I will now look at some of the individuals involved with Hizb
ut-Tahrir. Omar Khan Sharif, one of the British bombers of Mike’s
Place in Tel Aviv, was found with Hizb ut-Tahrir literature. The
bombing took place in the second intifada, so let us remember
what an intifada is, for those who have been marching in the
streets with signs calling for an intifada. At the weekend,
people held signs calling for a “socialist intifada.” I am not
sure what a socialist intifada is—perhaps it means murdering
people more fairly—but that is what people have been calling
for.
The second intifada involved the bombing of pubs and civilian
buses, and it involved the murder of countless innocent
civilians. That is what people have been calling for on our
streets, and they have been allowed to continue calling for it
without any police action.
(Bury South) (Lab)
It gets even worse, because this weekend we heard people not only
on the march but on the stage saying that massacres should now
become the norm. There is no place for that in society, which is
why such motions should be welcomed not only by every Member but
by everyone in this country.
I could not agree more. Doubtless the majority of people who
attend protests are peaceful, but that behaviour is making Jewish
people in this country frightened of wherever the protests take
place. The Jewish community in my region has expressed to me its
concerns about the small marches we have had in my area, and of
course Jews in London are afraid to come into central London when
the marches are taking place, precisely because of that
behaviour, which I believe is by a minority.
The leader of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Denmark was convicted of racial
hatred for distributing a leaflet that said:
“Kill them, kill the Jews wherever you find them.”
The organisation tells its followers that they should not be
close friends with non-Muslims. In fact, one of its leaflets
says:
“We maintain that the clash of civilisations is not only
inevitable but imperative.”
Of course, it shares that view with neo-Nazis. It is absolutely
right to ban this organisation, and I agree with everything that
the Minister and the shadow Minister said. Welcome though it is,
however, the ban will not end the continued targeting of the
Jewish community and Jewish people in this country, which has led
to a 1,000%-plus increase in antisemitism.
This week I was informed by the police force in my area that
pro-Palestinian activists might come to protest one of our
Holocaust Memorial Day events. I am sure they will protest
peacefully, but that event is being targeted for no other reason
than Jews will be present. That is absolutely appalling and
disgraceful behaviour, just as it would be for a person to
protest Hamas or Hizb ut-Tahrir at a Muslim community event. It
is completely unacceptable. In fact, it is perverted.
A Jewish charity that supports disaffected young men and young
boys in the north of London was targeted this week by activists,
who screamed and shouted abuse outside. What does a Jewish
charity working with disaffected youth have to do with this
conflict? It was targeted for no other reason than it involves
Jews.
We have seen continued denial of the events of 7 October in
online spaces and on the streets of this country. Although this
proscription will do a great deal, it will not prevent the
continued targeting of Jews. Indeed, in just the last few days,
because of a smear someone posted online after I dared to say in
this place that people who do not contextualise the Israeli
response to 7 October with the events of 7 October are giving the
terrorists a “free pass”, I have received the most appalling
antisemitic communications, including describing the hostages as,
“Them Zionist rat hostages.” Someone messaged me to say, “Nobody
cares about the Jews.” Another messaged me to tell me that I
should be flogged because of my beliefs. I have been targeted
with emails directly quoting the comments made about me on social
media and telling me that they were false-flag operations, that
the hostages do not exist and that it was the Israelis who killed
people on 7 October—all the various conspiracy theories. The
comments on social media have enabled antisemitism of the most
awful kind, and I am afraid it will continue, which is why we
have to do so much more.
I know that both the Government and the Opposition have done
incredible things in calling all of this out and putting extra
money into the CST, but the continued targeting of Jews in this
country is deeply disturbing. Although this motion is welcome, it
will not prevent that from continuing. We need tougher
action.
As I said in a Westminster Hall debate, it has seemed on occasion
as if the Metropolitan police force is acting as the public
relations arm of some of the protests, instead of doing what it
should be doing and protecting British Jews from such hate
speech. We are such a small community, just 0.5% of the
population.
I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister for what they have
said, and I welcome this move. I hope the Minister will answer my
question on whether the order will apply to Hizb ut-Tahrir’s
online activities.
12.17pm
(Aberdeen North) (SNP)
The SNP absolutely supports the proscription of Hizb ut-Tahrir.
We stand with Jews and Jewish communities against
antisemitism.
I particularly thank the Union of Jewish Students for its work in
Aberdeen, and I am grateful for the comments it has brought to me
about its experiences in the wake of 7 October. The hon. Member
for Brigg and Goole () told us about some of the
incredibly explicit and horrific comments he has received, and I
feel for all those who receive such comments, whether or not they
are in the public light. Receiving such comments is awful, and we
are happy to commit to working with everyone in the House to do
everything we can to oppose antisemitism, wherever it occurs in
our communities. We must stamp out antisemitism wherever we
can.
We recognise the horrifying, dangerous comments and attitudes of
Hizb ut-Tahrir, and agree with the reasons the Minister set out
for its proscription. At a time of unprecedented violence on so
many fronts, we call for, and we support those who call for,
unity in the face of the forces of hatred that try to divide
us.
Can the Minister assure us that, after proscription, he and the
Government will take further action to remove Hizb ut-Tahrir’s
ability to operate in the UK and, together with international
partners, its ability to operate around the world, where we can
do so? Will he update the House on the Government’s action and
its impact, afterwards if necessary? I understand the need for
some of that action to be taken without giving a heads up, but we
would like to see the outcome and whether it has had an effect,
so that we can support future action and be clear that it will
achieve what the Government intend.
I wholeheartedly agree with the comments made by the hon. Member
for Brigg and Goole about the Antisemitism Policy Trust and Danny
Stone. Danny is an absolutely dedicated public servant who does a
huge amount of good in supporting his community and bringing
advice and information to parliamentarians, ensuring that we are
all far more knowledgeable as a result.
Will the Minister update the House on whether the Government have
made a further assessment of whether to proscribe the Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps? It continues to be the SNP’s position
that sanctions are not enough and that proscription of this
organisation is required. If he can assure us that this is being
kept under a watching brief, that would give us at least some
reassurance that the Government have not entirely ruled it out
and that it could be considered in the future. We ask that that
organisation be proscribed too.
I thank the Minister for introducing this order, and I agree with
the timescale. It is relatively unusual to have legislation come
forward this quickly, but in this case we are happy to support it
because of the speed and haste with which this has to be done in
order to ensure that Hizb ut-Tahrir can be proscribed. We support
the UK Government’s proscription of the organisation. We hope
that the action taken by the Minister, his Government and
everyone mentioned by those on the shadow Front Bench, including
the security staff and the police, will ensure that such
organisations cannot continue to operate. We support the work
that they are doing, and we hope that it pays off. We hope that
we have positive results as a result of the action that the
Government, the security services and the police are taking. As I
say, we are happy to support the proscription in this case.
12.21pm
(Chingford and Woodford
Green) (Con)
I rise to support the Government. The proscription of Hizb
ut-Tahrir is overdue, but it is always good when it happens. I
continue to welcome my right hon. Friend the Minister to his
position. Both of us, of course, have been sanctioned by the
Chinese Government, and I may touch on this in a second.
The proscription of Hizb ut-Tahrir is overdue because it has been
well known for quite some time here that the UK has been at the
centre of operations. I am always concerned about how long it
sometimes takes us in the UK to openly recognise that there are
forces at work within this United Kingdom, using our freedoms and
our judicial system to protect themselves while they promote the
most ghastly behaviour and attitudes. After all, Hizb ut-Tahrir
is an antisemitic organisation, as my hon. Friend the Member for
Brigg and Goole () and my right hon. Friend the
Minister have already made clear. Antisemitism is at the core of
its whole being. It is not an organisation that is passingly
antisemitic; antisemitism is its core belief.
Let us be clear that the killing of Jews is a priority for Hizb
ut-Tahrir, and its activities here in the UK, as a result of the
protection it is no longer to have, have influenced a lot of
people who do not really understand what is going on in the
middle east and who settle on the idea that Hizb ut-Tahrir is
somehow espousing the views of a people who are persecuted
abroad. It is not; Hizb ut-Tahrir is talking about the
persecution and eventual eradication of the Jewish people.
Hizb ut-Tahrir is antisemitic and racist, as my hon. Friend said.
It has also supported other groups in their attacks
on Israel as has been
said already. Hizb ut-Tahrir celebrated the October murders and
the taking of hostages, and it has encouraged terrorism globally,
but it has also provided excuses for some of the nonsense being
said at the moment on some of the marches. People do not seem to
understand what the organisation is saying. I support my hon.
Friend’s call to make sure that its online activities are sought
out and shut down, and that those involved in them are prosecuted
under the criminal code. That is critical, so I welcome my
Government’s decision to proscribe Hizb ut-Tahrir.
It is worth bearing in mind—I want to come back to this in a
second—that, as my hon. Friend said earlier, there are 79
terrorist organisations proscribed here in the UK, and this will
now add to that. I want to come to the other bit here, which is
to do with the IRGC. I will not spend too long on this, but I
want to make this point, because these organisations are linked.
We are proscribing an organisation that is dangerous, vile,
antisemitic and abusive, but there is another organisation whose
fingers extend into all these organisations around the world and
here in the UK: the IRGC. It makes possible much of what goes on
in terms of the attitudes towards antisemitism, the attacks on
people in a democracy, and the misogyny and homophobia within
these organisations. It is not just one element; it is
complete.
We know now that, since the attacks in October, Iran has
accelerated its executions of those who have protested against
the current regime. An astonishing number of executions is now
taking place, under cover of what is going on in Gaza. It is
quite appalling. We know that the IRGC is behind Hezbollah. It
directs, it arms and it makes sure that Hezbollah acts as its arm
in Lebanon and beyond. It is attacking Israel right now to
keep Israeli forces tied up in northern Israel for tactical
reasons.
The second part is that we are now engaged in trying to protect
our shipping in the Red sea. Who is supplying the Houthi
rebels—the terrorists—with arms and direction? It is Iran, which
has upped its supply of rockets to the Houthis. When the Foreign
Secretary says to Iran that it has some responsibility for this,
as I think he did quite recently, Iran’s response is, “Mind your
own business and leave that alone.” It is still supplying the
Houthis with weapons and, if we do not get our action right, they
could shut down the Red sea for all trade.
When I was approached by somebody who had been protesting, I
asked, “Are you aware of what is going on here?” They said, “What
does it matter? These people in Israel are
persecuting the Palestinians in Gaza, so they’re right to do
this.” I replied, “So you don’t mind massive inflation hikes and
huge extra costs. You don’t mind the fact that trade cannot
travel down the shorter route and all the other considerations.”
They just looked at me blankly, because they had not understood
what we were talking about. Right now, Iran is directly involved
in what is going on in the Red sea to try to shut down the free
world’s business arrangements and affect the cost of goods.
Another part of it is that Iran was quite clearly involved in the
attacks that took place in October on peaceful Israeli citizens
and others, the murders and the hostage taking. How does it
benefit from this? Iran knew that Israel would have
to respond. That was exactly what the whole plan was: to launch a
vile attack, murder enough Jews and make sure that Israeli
territory was invaded, so that Israel was bound
to attack.
I am not going to spend time debating exactly how
far Israel should have gone
or any of that, which is a separate issue. My personal view is
very clear: Iran is linked to Russia, and what is going on takes
the attention off Russia and divides America’s ability to supply
arms and weaponry. It creates a major debate, which is going on
in the United States at the moment, about giving supplies to the
Ukrainians to defend themselves, and it also takes the attention
away from China’s aggression towards Taiwan.
Iran is part of the axis of authoritarianism which also includes
China, North Korea, Russia, and now Syria and others in the
middle east. Iran is very dangerous, and the IRGC is the arm of
the Iranian Government. Not only is Iran behind all the attacks,
but it continues to persecute Christians to a degree that we
simply cannot understand. Executions, incarcerations and abuse
are taking place, as we heard yesterday in a report delivered
here in the House of Commons.
What do the Government plan to do about the IRGC? America has
asked the British Government to proscribe it, and we simply have
not yet responded. I asked a nameless individual who is involved
with this, and with the Government, why they have not proscribed
the IRGC. They said, “It keeps a back channel for us to get
America through to Iran.” I said, “What? We now have to act as a
back channel for the Americans? Don’t we think the American
Government are quite capable of finding ways to engage Iran if
they have to?” They then said, “Well, of course we would lose our
ability to influence Iran.” I asked them, “Exactly what influence
have we had over Iran in the last five years?” They said, “The
release of hostages.” I said, “No, you didn’t. You paid for those
big time, and they were hostage-taking for that.” We have no
influence over Iran. Iran is dangerous, and the IRGC is the arm
of that threat around the world.
With two Iranian banks sitting in the City of London, we know how
the money is transferred to support some of these organisations,
creating some of the nonsense on the marches. Most people do not
understand what “From the river to the sea” means,
notwithstanding the fact that Hassan Nasrallah made it very clear
that the chant means clearing the Jews out of Palestine,
and Israel being gone. It
is as simple as that. He said that that is what it means, yet
people chant it and the Metropolitan police still does not seem
to understand that it is an aggressive, antisemitic chant.
I have a Jewish sister-in-law who told me the other day that she
has never felt more under threat and less safe in this country in
her whole life. What a statement to make in this United Kingdom,
which upholds freedom of speech and the rule of law—that a Jewish
person now feels desperately under threat just getting up and
going to work in the morning. That is simply not right and we
need to deal with it. Who is behind all this? The IRGC.
In his concluding remarks, will the Minister please address this
issue? It is more than high time. This is a cross-party issue; I
know that those on the Opposition Front Bench have called for it.
We have to face this. The IRGC must now be proscribed and the
banks of Iran shut down in the UK. The IRGC can no longer
continue to use the UK as a base for further operations. I
congratulate the Government on their decision on Hizb ut-Tahrir,
but we should go a lot further. We need to protect our
citizens.
12.32pm
(Bury South) (Lab)
I congratulate the Government—I will not say that too many
times—on taking the important and welcome step of banning the
extremist antisemitic, misogynistic and homophobic group that is
Hizb ut-Tahrir. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Brigg
and Goole () about the 136 hostages still
in Gaza. One message that we can all get behind is to bring them
home now.
This group poses a threat not only to democratic institutions but
to people, including the vast majority of the Muslim community
here at home. Hizb ut-Tahrir, or HUT, as I will refer to it, has
blighted our shores and specifically our university campuses for
years. It has run meetings and distributed leaflets, including
one that described Jews as “cowards” and called on Muslims to
“purify yourselves against the deceptions of the Jews”.
On the Israel-Palestine conflict, it has called for
“the elimination of the monstrous Jewish entity, restoring all of
Palestine to the lands of Islam”.
If that is not an organisation preaching hatred, I do not know
what is.
Anti-racism campaigners including the Union of Jewish Students
have been particularly alive to the threat, and its officers have
run campaigns over many years, including, successfully, to have
the group outlawed by the National Union of Students as early as
1994. Despite that, UK HUT activists have sought to circumvent
such efforts. Reports have emerged that between 2022 and 2023,
keynote speakers from HUT spoke to 10 separate campuses over 18
months, including in Bradford and Birmingham, and at the London
School of Economics. The speakers included Luqman Muqeem, a
prominent figure on the HUT website, who spoke five times at the
University of Birmingham, despite having posted videos online in
which he said that Muslims must fight Jews to the death and
voiced support for the attack on Sir Salman Rushdie.
HUT has a long history of using front groups on campuses. For
example, radicals from the group have sought to pass themselves
off as the One Nation Society, the Democracy Society, the Islamic
Front, the Muslim Media Forum, the Muslim Current Affairs
Society, the New World Society and the 1924 Society. In changing
the legislation, will the Government also look at those
organisations to ensure that HUT can find no further loopholes to
preach its hatred on university campuses? Such groups were
observed at universities across the country, including in
Nottingham, at Queen Mary and, locally to me, in Manchester.
Concerns have been raised about how the group might have
continued to undermine our legal and official systems using those
front groups.
The Antisemitism Policy Trust’s Danny Stone, who has rightly been
mentioned several times in the debate, highlighted to the Public
Bill Committee for the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act
2023 the danger of HUT, in its many guises, misusing the new free
speech protections in order to solicit compensation. It is
therefore extremely welcome news that that potential loophole is
now firmly closed, but I ask the Minister to confirm that front
groups, aliases and other masks will not be enough to prevent
HUT’s members from being identified and prosecuted.
This move will be welcomed not only by me: numerous
others—individuals such as Sir Anthony Glees, and groups such as
the CST and HOPE not hate—have called for HUT to be proscribed.
Although I welcome today’s move we need, as the right hon. Member
for Chingford and Woodford Green ( ) said, to go further and
proscribe the one group that is not only providing funding but
destabilising entire regions: the IRGC. That is more important
now than ever, considering the last 100 days or so. Both groups
are antisemitic; they blatantly repeat those tropes time and
again. I have mentioned that in this Chamber, on the streets, in
Westminster Hall and online, and will continue to do so, because
we need to highlight what an evil organisation the IRGC is.
Both organisations perpetuate homophobia, suggesting that both
Labour and the Conservatives should not be trusted because of our
work to protect LGBT communities. Again, that is not welcome in a
modern, tolerant society. The IRGC rails against what it defines
as the “secular, democratic, liberal system”, and in favour of a
global caliphate. These are freedoms and rights that we have
worked hard to earn, and we will protect them with every ounce of
our being, because that is the right thing to do.
Worldwide, HUT has reportedly been behind attempted coups in
Jordan, Syria and Egypt, again with the backing of the IRGC. The
IRGC is also in Yemen, backing the Houthis, in Lebanon with
Hezbollah, and in Gaza with Hamas. Those activities are not
limited to foreign countries: we see them on the streets in this
country, which is why we really need to tackle the threat of the
IRGC seriously. When we see Hamas operatives here in the capital,
that is a step too far. This move from the Government is
important and correct. It is slightly overdue, but it is welcome.
I thank the Minister for coming to the House to highlight it, but
we need to go further.
12.38pm
(Orkney and Shetland)
(LD)
I place on the record my support, and that of my party, for
today’s measure. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford
Green ( ) gave a lot of important
international context, particularly in relation to recent events
in the Red sea and in Yemen. I will spare the House a repetition
of what he said. I simply place on the record the fact that I
very much endorse his analysis of what is going on there, not
least because it brings into sharp relief the role of the IRGC.
As others have said, it seems as if the focus of our attention
must now turn in the direction of the IRGC. If it is any
consolation to the Minister, I think it has emerged from today’s
debate that a consensus to proscribe the IRGC would be easily
constructed.
Whether to proscribe Hizb ut-Tahrir is not a new debate; it has
been going on for a considerable time. I think it was back in
2011 that , the Government reviewer of
terror legislation, advised against proscription on the basis
that the group was not advocating violence. Clearly, we are in a
different situation today, but I mention that because I feel
slightly conflicted about the speed with which we have moved. We
should be slow to ban any organisation because, as a society, it
is not something we should do lightly. However, once the evidence
is there, as it clearly has been for some time and as it has been
in relation to the IRGC, then, as the hon. Member for Barnsley
Central () said, that raises questions about whether our
processes for making such decisions are adequate.
Obviously, it is important to take this step as part of our
domestic legislation at the moment, because not to do so would
send the worst possible signal to those in the Jewish communities
who have felt so embattled since the events of 7 October. I hope
they will take some comfort from the fact that action of this
sort has been taken against those who have preached, and done
more than preach, antisemitism.
However, there is a wider legislative context. As important as it
is to proscribe organisations like Hizb ut-Tahrir, that is only
part of a bigger plan. It seems that many of the other tools in
that fight, such as the Prevent strategy, are not achieving the
goals we need them to achieve. They are overdue for a proper
root-and-branch review. Let us not forget that a spiral emerges
here: we see the growth in antisemitism and antisemitic hate
crime, but that in turn produces a growth in Islamophobia. So we
do not proscribe Hizb ut-Tahrir in the interest only of Jewish
communities, but in the interest of Muslim communities as
well.
The tackling of extremism, of which that is just part, has to be
at the heart of finding a long-term and sustainable way of
approaching the issue. I encourage the Minister to speak again to
his colleagues in the Home Office, in particular about the
Prevent strategy. We know what we want it to achieve but, as we
view it today, I have serious concerns about its ability to
deliver what we need it to do.
12.42pm
(Strangford) (DUP)
Truly, the world is becoming a hostile place. The more we watch
what happens across the world, the more we are convinced of the
evil intent of many. I thank the Minister for his statement,
clarity and strength of intention. I know that my party will
fully support him, as we always do when it comes to these
matters.
The reasons for the proscription have been clearly outlined by
others. It is important that we do something in relation to the
Hamas murders of 1,200 innocent Israelis, the taking of hostages,
the continuing war of aggression and their view about the
annihilation of the Israelis. In the UK, we want to play our
part. The Minister has outlined how we can take on the terrorist
activities and intentions of those who march in the streets and
think they have a status above the law of the land. Today, quite
clearly, they do not, and we welcome that.
The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green ( ) always speaks with much
wisdom and brings forward issues that we all endorse in their
entirety. The proscription of the IRGC is critical because it
funds, trains and gives weapons to many terrorist organisations
across the world. We need to take that proscription a stage
further, on top of this one, and do that with a zest. I am ever
mindful that 79 organisations have been proscribed already.
As a Northern Ireland MP, I am obviously aware of the issues, as
is the right hon. and gallant Member for Tonbridge and Malling
(), from his personal point of view, having served in
the Army and now as the Minister for Security. The Real IRA and
the New IRA have been most active, and the threat level in
Northern Ireland is at a height we have not seen for some time.
There have been a number of demonstrations across Northern
Ireland and we are ever mindful of international terrorism, as
those who want to murder, destabilise, kill, maim and destroy
come together, wherever they may be from.
I am conscious that it is not always appropriate for the Minister
to answer certain questions in the Chamber, but I want to put on
the record my concerns about the connections between IRA
republicanism and international terrorism. During the
demonstrations that have taken place across Northern Ireland,
things were said and done that should never have been done in
this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
where I am great believer in unity and being better together.
On commitment by police forces, has the Minister had the
opportunity to speak to the forces here on the mainland and to
the Police Service of Northern Ireland, to ensure that they
collectively take on Hizb ut-Tahrir, the terrorist organisation
proscribed today? I am sure he has, but it would be nice to have
that on the record. It is important that we are unified on the
issue, as we are in the Chamber, especially when it comes to
intelligence gathering and working collectively. Police forces
need to be able to exchange their points of view and the
intelligence that they gather to ensure that they protect our
citizens across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, which we all have a duty to do. The
proscription today is a step in the right direction, but I hope
the Minister can provide some reassurance on my final points.
12.46pm
I pay tribute to Members for the tone in which the debate has
been conducted. I place on record my thanks to the hon. Member
for Barnsley Central (); it is a pleasure to stand with him again in
protecting our country’s interest, this time a little closer to
home. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Halifax (), who was with him on the
Opposition Front Bench earlier. She was an extremely able
predecessor in his role and a great help.
I repeat the hon. Gentleman’s thanks to the intelligence
services, who have done so much to prepare the evidence in
various different ways which has enabled us to support these
various actions, although much of the information has been
public, so it has been able to prepare it in the usual way. I
thank him for his comments about the way in which this work has
been done. As he recognises, it has been a little quicker than we
would normally go, but I am grateful that the Scottish National
party and the Labour party recognise that there is an urgency to
this matter and have supported it.
I will briefly answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions about the
timing of the proscription. This is, quite rightly, detailed
legal work. The judgment has to be made extremely carefully. It
must be not only lawful but proportionate, and we must get that
balance right. As others have mentioned, proscription is an
extremely powerful tool. It is not a political tool or to be used
at the whim of a Government or Minister to silence critics or
debate. This tool should be used only to protect the British
people from terrorism—that is its purpose. We need to make
absolutely clear that we are using it appropriately and only when
necessary. All of us in this House, I hope, support freedom of
views and freedom of expression. We have all heard things we may
not like, but we would defend the right of people to say them,
and we must ensure we are extremely careful about that.
The hon. Gentleman raised a question about the definition of
extremism. As he knows, we are working on that. I pay a huge
tribute to those working on that and to the Government’s
countering extremism adviser, Robin Simcox, who has been an
extremely important voice in much of the debate. I thank Members
on the Opposition Front Bench for their support.
I turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (), who has been a good friend
of mine, but more importantly a good friend to his community for
a very long time. He is tireless in the campaign against
antisemitism. He rightly identifies what we are seeing today as
being in the mould of the fascist movements of the 1930s. We
could easily mistake some of the words on the works of Hizb
ut-Tahrir as coming from the voices of some of the fascist
leaders of the 1920s. They bear a stark resemblance to them. He
is absolutely right that the online activities must be banned,
and he will be pleased to hear that they are: all activities by
this group are banned.
My hon. Friend is also right to say that Jews should not be
afraid to be in London at any time, and certainly not on a
Saturday or a Sunday, when many people want to go out shopping or
just to be with friends and family. These protests, sadly, have
not only been vile demonstrations of some of the worst parts of
our community, but radicalising moments in themselves. I know the
police are aware of that; the Home Secretary and I have both
spoken to them about that.
I thank the right hon. and gallant Member for giving way. He
joined me on the march against antisemitism several weeks ago
when tens of thousands of people were saying no to Jew hatred.
May I use this moment to say that there is a similar march in
Manchester this weekend? If any Member wants to join us to say no
to antisemitism, they would be more than welcome.
The hon. Gentleman will see me again on Sunday, as I will be
there with him.
(New Forest West) (Con)
May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that his Department look
into the possibility of confining marches to a static location?
The fact is that all people are currently being inhibited from
attending central London at weekends and that is having a
significant impact on commerce and shopping in the west end. I
would not want to see demonstrations inhibited by having costs
imposed on them, but it seems a perfectly reasonable compromise
after so many marches to have static locations.
I thank my right hon. Friend for his suggestion. I shall
certainly take that away and I am sure that my colleagues in the
Department will come back to him.
May I just turn to the remarks of the hon. Member for Aberdeen
North ()? She rightly praised the
Union of Jewish Students in Aberdeen and the work that it has
done. The union has done some incredibly important work around
the United Kingdom in our universities, which have seen a rise in
antisemitism on their campuses. I have already spoken to
Universities UK and the Russell Group about that. We simply
cannot tolerate this. It is simply unacceptable to see students
excluded from education because of the vile hatred of others. It
is wrong. It is unBritish and it will not be tolerated.
The hon. Lady will understand—I hope that she forgives me—why for
very obvious reasons I will not go into the actions that the
police and other organisations may be taking, but she can be
assured that conversations have been had that will lead to
actions as soon as possible to ensure that this proscription,
once authorised by both Houses, will not be sitting idly on the
books and will be enforced as she would rightly expect.
Just before the Minister finishes on that point, will he commit
to updating us, even if it is some time down the line, about the
impact that those actions have had, to assure us that they have
worked?
Absolutely, I will do that. I hope the House forgives me if I
sound slightly coy in the way that I put this, but I will update
the hon. Lady as soon as I can in the most appropriate way
possible.
I now turn to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for
Chingford and Woodford Green ( ), who noted that we were
both sanctioned by the Chinese state. I can add both the Iranian
and Russian Governments, and after today, I think he will be
joining me in at least one of those. What we are seeing is a
pattern of violence, as he rightly identifies. It has spread out
of Tehran over many decades and has had an influence on many
different groups, including, as he correctly identifies, in the
Red sea in this latest episode of Houthi piracy. We are
incredibly aware of that, which is why the Government have
rightly taken action. The Prime Minister was absolutely clear
immediately that we should stand not just with our American
allies, but with many others around the world in making sure that
we defend freedom of navigation and that we protect those people
working on ships, who are from very diverse backgrounds and have
been targeted by this violence in recent months. Sadly, we have
seen the murder of crews and ship workers by Houthi rebels in the
Red sea, and it is right that we take action. I am grateful to
the Prime Minister for his clear and determined response.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green
also raised the question of dealing with state actors in this
matter. This is something that he and I have discussed in the
past. I draw the House’s attention to the recent introduction of
the National Security Act 2023, which gives extraordinary and
extra powers to our intelligence and police services to make sure
that they may take action not just against intelligence services
but against any who are supporting them and working with them. It
is not, I admit, the same as proscription, but it does give a
huge range of authority to our community to make sure that it is
properly defended against the threats that we see.
It would be wrong of me to comment further on proscription
options that we may be holding in reserve. As Members will know,
for very clear reasons these are matters that we do not discuss
until we are ready to announce them. None the less, it is
absolutely right to say that we are taking the state abuse of our
citizens, or the intervention of states in our Government or
economic processes, extremely seriously. That sits alongside the
National Security and Investment Act 2021 and hopefully
demonstrates clearly to the whole House that we will not tolerate
foreign interference or foreign aggression on our soil, or
illegitimate uses by foreign intelligence services of
organisations within the United Kingdom that are designed to do
us harm.
The hon. Member for Bury South, who I will be seeing on Sunday,
also spoke about front groups, and he was absolutely right to do
so. If there are aliases or name changes, provisions can be
changed quickly. That is covered under the Terrorism Act 2000.
Should it be necessary, we will update the House, but Members can
be assured that simply changing a name does not avoid
proscription.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael)
spoke about advocating violence and the challenge of
radicalisation in what we are seeing. I draw the House’s
attention to the fact that the independent reviewer of Prevent,
Sir William Shawcross, has just published his report. He has done
what I think is a magisterial piece of work, which highlights
areas where we need to update and change policies. We have
accepted his recommendations and are in the process of making
sure that the Prevent duty, as it applies to this country, is
there to help and protect families across this country not just
from the effects of violence, but from the effects of
radicalisation. The pain that many families must feel when their
children are torn away into these cult-like organisations is
horrific, and it is quite right that we protect families from
every community across this country.
That is where the hon. Member for Strangford () is right as well. Of course this action applies
across the whole of the United Kingdom and of course we will be
having conversations with police forces across the whole of the
United Kingdom. I regularly communicate with the PSNI, which is a
very important part of our national police presence and a very
effective police force. I am grateful to the hon. Member for his
comments and support. This action is about protecting the whole
of the United Kingdom against terror. Sadly, his part of the
United Kingdom has experienced far too much of that, although I
remember very clearly, as a child here in London, the effects of
Northern Irish terror being felt on the underground and on the
buses, where, sadly, too many people were also killed and
maimed.
On that, I thank the House for this debate. I hope that this
motion will go through as intended to ensure that this country is
better protected.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations)
(Amendment) Order 2024, which was laid before this House on 15
January, be approved.
Terrorism Act 2000
(Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2024
Moved by
That the draft Order laid before the House on 15 January be
approved.
Relevant document: 8th Report from the Secondary Legislation
Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office () (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the House for its consideration of
this draft order, which will see Hizb ut-Tahrir proscribed.
It may be helpful if I start by setting out some background to
the proscription power. Some 79 terrorist organisations are
currently proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. For an
organisation to be proscribed, the Home Secretary must believe
that it is concerned in terrorism, as set out in Section 3 of the
Terrorism Act 2000. If the statutory test is met, the Home
Secretary must then consider the proportionality of proscription
and decide whether or not to exercise their discretion.
Proscription is a powerful tool with severe penalties,
criminalising membership and invitations of support for the
organisation. It also supports other disruptive activity,
including immigration disruptions and terrorist financing
offences. The resources of a proscribed organisation are
terrorist property and are therefore liable to be seized.
The Home Secretary is supported in his decision-making by advice
from the cross-government Proscription Review Group. A decision
to proscribe is taken only after great care and consideration,
given its wide-ranging impact. It must be approved by both
Houses.
Part II of the Terrorism Act 2000 contains the proscription
offences, in Sections 11 to 13. An organisation is proscribed if
it is listed in Schedule 2 to that Act or, in most cases, it
operates under the same name as an organisation so listed.
Article 2 of this order adds Hizb ut-Tahrir to the list in
Schedule 2 as a new entry.
With this House’s consent, Hizb ut-Tahrir, including all regional
branches, such as Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain, will be proscribed.
Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary
has concluded that Hizb ut-Tahrir is concerned in terrorism and
should be proscribed. Noble Lords will understand, I am sure,
that I am unable to comment on specific intelligence.
Nevertheless, I can provide Members with a summary of the group’s
activities, which supports this decision.
Hizb ut-Tahrir, which I will now refer to simply as HuT, is an
international political organisation with a footprint in at least
32 countries, including the UK, US, Canada and Australia. Its
long-term goal is to establish a caliphate ruled under Islamic
law. HuT’s headquarters and central media office are in Beirut,
Lebanon, and its ideology and strategy are co-ordinated
centrally.
The British branch, which I will refer to as HTB, was established
in the 1980s. While HTB is afforded autonomy to operate in its
local environment, it is important to emphasise at this point
that HuT should be considered as a coherent international
movement, with HTB recognising the overall leadership of HuT on
its website. This decision to proscribe therefore relates to HTB,
and other regional branches, in forming part of a single, global
entity, which is HuT.
There is current evidence that HuT is concerned in terrorism.
HuT’s central media office and several of HuT’s Middle Eastern
branches have celebrated and praised the barbaric 7 October
terrorist attacks carried out by Hamas, which, as noble Lords
will be aware, is a proscribed organisation. When the
proscription of Hamas was extended to include both the military
and political wings in 2021, the Government were clear that Hamas
prepares, commits and participates in acts of terrorism.
Further recent activity includes an article attributed to HuT’s
Egyptian branch, which referred to the killing of Jewish tourists
by an Egyptian police officer as
“a simple example of what should be done towards the Jews”.
Elsewhere, HuT has frequently referred to Hamas as “the heroes of
Palestine” in articles on its website. HTB also published an
article on its website, which was subsequently removed, which
described the 7 October attacks as a “long awaited victory” and
referred to the fact that they
“ignited a wave of joy and elation amongst Muslims globally”.
It is the Government’s view that the content included in this
article betrays the organisation’s true ideology and beliefs,
aligned with the organisation’s global output.
HuT has regularly engaged in anti-Semitic and homophobic
discourse. While HuT claims to be committed to non-violence, it
rejects democracy and its aims bear similarities to those of
terrorist groups, including Daesh, which of course is already
proscribed.
The decision to proscribe is supported by our international
partners. Hizb ut-Tahrir is banned in many countries around the
world, including Germany for anti-constitutional reasons, with
restrictions also placed on its activities in Austria, among
others.
Proscription is a powerful tool. It will significantly thwart
HuT’s operations in the UK. It is a criminal offence for a person
to belong to a proscribed organisation; invite or express support
for a proscribed organisation; arrange a meeting in support of a
proscribed organisation; or wear clothing or carry or display
articles in public in such a way or in such circumstances as to
arouse reasonable suspicion that the individual is a member or
supporter of a proscribed organisation. The penalties for
conviction of proscription offences can be a maximum of 14 years
in prison and/or an unlimited fine.
The first duty of the Government is to keep the people of the
United Kingdom safe. They rightly expect us to take every
possible measure in service of that endeavour. Our message is
clear: we will not tolerate the promotion or encouragement of
terrorism, nor will we accept the promotion or glorification of
Hamas’s abhorrent attack of 7 October. We will confront
anti-Semitism wherever and however it rears its ugly head, taking
every possible step to keep the Jewish community in the United
Kingdom safe.
We must and will use every available measure to safeguard our
values and tackle terrorism in all its forms. I therefore urge
the House to support this proscription, which is a proportionate
and justified response to the promotion and encouragement of
terrorism, and to calls for violence and disorder, as espoused by
HuT. I beg to move.
(Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister and the Government
for this. I am not sure that I am going to go down the route of,
“What took us so long?” I recall talking about banning Hizb
ut-Tahrir. I even recall our new noble friend the Foreign
Secretary talking about it in 2010, before becoming Prime
Minister, saying that it was something that would be done.
Therefore, I am very grateful to the Minister and his colleagues
for ensuring that it has been done.
I guess I declare an interest: I am a Jew, and very proud of it.
I know full well what Hizb ut-Tahrir wants to do to me, my family
and my co-religionists. I am grateful to the Minister for this
measure, so obviously I will support it.
However, the Minister will know that I do not miss an
opportunity—and I will not miss this opportunity. While the
Government are on a roll and have done the right thing, they know
that I and others in this House believe that the IRGC should be
going in exactly the same way. The IRGC are the masters of
everything that we do not like, in the way that the Minister
described at the beginning. While thanking him, I hope that he
will not mind me asking for a little bit more. The IRGC needs to
be proscribed.
(LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the measure so
clearly. I agree with what he said. It is regrettable that I have
had to cover a number of organisations to be
proscribed—regrettable because we are living in an age,
unfortunately, when there are organisations which abuse our
liberties and freedoms. They are either terrorist organisations
themselves or they support terror.
Indeed, we live in an age of heightened conflict. Next week, I
and other noble Lords will be considering another suite of
sanctions related to the conflict in Ukraine, and I will be
receiving a delegation of Lebanese who are fearful for the
security in that country—the country the Minister referred
to.
These are difficult times. Therefore, as we protect our
communities as well as our freedoms and liberties, it is
unfortunately necessary to have measures such as these. The
Minister said, quite rightly, that there are high bars to be
reached before proscription. I know that he will not comment on
the previous attempts at proscription—I also read the reference
to the previous calls; I do not expect him to comment on that—but
I will ask him a few questions on the measures coming
forward.
5.45pm
Before doing so, I note very strongly that the Community Security
Trust and the Board of Deputies of British Jews have supported
these measures. One of the more regrettable activities in the UK
since October has been the heightened level of anti-Semitism. It
is to be noted also that there has been an increase in the number
of incidents of Islamophobia. The level of tensions in our
societies has been heighted, but that is not an excuse for
anti-Semitism or for putting fear into part of our community.
I am sure that the Home Office has been monitoring this very
closely, and I would be grateful to hear, either today or in
writing, whether the Minister has information on the monitoring
of cases of anti-Semitism. What are the levels of prosecutions at
the moment? The Minister spoke with great passion in previous
debates on the need for the police to prosecute. It is clear
that, even after 100 days, many parts of our communities do not
feel safe. I have many friends, as do other noble colleagues in
this House, whose families and friends still live in fear and
intimidation. That is unacceptable in the United Kingdom.
On the wider aspects of this measure, the Minister referred not
only to the UK link—the British arm—but to its wider reach. He
referenced the headquarters in Lebanon. I note that government
advice had been provided for British residents to leave Lebanon a
number of weeks ago. I would be grateful if the Minister wrote to
me on the Government’s assessment on both travel advice and the
safety and security of British residents abroad. As he said, it
is our duty to ensure that our country is safe, while our
nationals are safe and receive the best quality advice if they
are resident in, work in or travel to another country.
On the impact in the UK, I note that no impact assessment of this
measure has been carried out—it does not necessarily meet the
threshold—although that is not a criticism. The Government
stated:
“There is no, or no significant, impact on the public sector”
or on
“business, charities or voluntary bodies”.
If that relates to the police, does the Minister have an
assessment of whether there are likely to be prosecutions, given
what he outlined on unacceptable behaviour? He may say that
Ministers never comment on such things, but we need to be
prepared, if we are proscribing organisations, to ensure that our
police are properly equipped to enforce the proscriptions once
Parliament has approved them.
This country benefits from a great tradition of freedom of speech
and expression. We will always oppose incitement and prejudice
leading to fear and a lack of safety for individuals.
Regrettably, some organisations abuse that, so it is correct that
we need action.
I will close on an unrelated matter, if the Minister will give me
some forbearance. We will next interact on Monday, on the Rwanda
treaty, about which I wrote to the Foreign Secretary. The
Minister is nodding, indicating that I may receive a reply, so I
am grateful for that. On that basis, I hope he will accept our
support and be able to respond in kind.
(Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for opening the debate today
clearly and concisely, and I agree with much of what the noble
Lords, and Lord Purvis, said.
Today’s proscription order is underpinned by the exceptional men
and women who serve in our intelligence and security services, in
government and in our police. They work tirelessly to keep our
country safe. We are extremely fortunate to have them. Keeping
our country safe is the first duty of government and a common
cause that we share and all treat with the utmost seriousness. On
that basis, it is vital, as the Minister knows, that the
Government and His Majesty’s Opposition work in the national
interest on these crucial issues.
As the Minister laid out, this order will amend Schedule 2 to the
Terrorism Act 2000 to add Hizb ut-Tahrir to the list of
proscribed organisations. Doing so will make it a criminal
offence to belong to Hizb ut-Tahrir, to engage in activities such
as attending meetings, to promote support for the group or to
display its logo. After years of serious and increasing concern
about Hizb ut-Tahrir’s activity in the UK, His Majesty’s
Opposition strongly support its proscription. It is a necessary
step to effectively counter its hateful extremism and divisive
rhetoric, which threatens the safety and security of our country.
As the Minister outlined, proscription of this international
terrorist organisation comes after other countries, including
Germany, have already banned it.
Hizb ut-Tahrir has been proscribed now because of its escalating
activity in the aftermath of Hamas’s barbaric terrorist attack
on Israel Unlike the
condemnation of these attacks by the vast majority of Muslims
here in the UK, who are just as horrified as the rest of us, Hizb
ut-Tahrir Britain glorified as heroes the Hamas terrorists who
revelled in acts of indiscriminate violence against civilians.
Again, unlike the deep sorrow and outrage the British people
shared with the Israeli people in the aftermath of 7 October,
Hizb ut-Tahrir boasted of its euphoria on the news of this
appalling and tragic loss of life.
There is no place on Britain’s streets for vile anti-Semitism.
There is no place on Britain’s streets for those who incite
violence and glorify terrorism. There is no place on Britain’s
streets for Hizb ut-Tahrir. This terrorist group peddles hate,
glorifies violence and is hostile not only to our values but to
the common sense of humanity. As the noble Lord, , mentioned, there is nothing
new about its divisive and poisonous rhetoric, which has been
widely recorded for over two decades in the UK, long before the
horrific attacks of 7 October. Organisations such as the
Community Security Trust, the Antisemitism Policy Trust and the
Union of Jewish Students have long raised serious concerns about
Hizb ut-Tahrir’s anti-Semitism, alongside its misogynistic and
homophobic hate speech, which provides a channel for extremism.
We have already heard that that is why previous Prime Ministers,
Home Secretaries and Security Ministers have considered
proscribing Hizb ut-Tahrir, but its activities were not
recognised as sufficient under the definition of terrorism in
Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 until now.
Given for how long these matters have been debated and
considered, I would be grateful if the Minister could answer some
questions when he responds. To start with, does he think that
there are lessons to be learned regarding the length of time it
has taken to proscribe this organisation? Does he believe that
the current proscription process is robust enough to counter
threats to our national security, and can he say when it became a
proportionate response in this case as well as in others? Can he
say whether other bodies, as we have heard, are under
consideration for proscription, given the various global threats
we face? Is the speed of decision-making up to the task? In
particular, and he will know that we have asked for this, does he
agree that a bespoke proscription mechanism for state-sponsored
organisations is now required—something that, as I say, His
Majesty’s Opposition, along with others, have called for?
Countering threats to our national security requires joined-up
government working, but the counter-extremism strategy has not
been updated since 2015, with important elements of policy around
community cohesion now the responsibility of the Levelling-Up
Secretary. Given the significance of these matters, can the
Minister tell the House when the Government will bring forward a
new definition of hateful extremism? Can he confirm whether his
department will update the counter-extremism strategy, as my
right honourable friend the shadow Home Secretary has called
for?
To conclude, proscribing Hizb ut-Tahrir is the right thing to do
for our national security. For too long, the public have been
exposed to its extremist ideology, its glorification of terrorist
activity and its core aim of overthrowing our democratic system
of government to replace it with an Islamist theocracy. If left
alone, extremism can and will spread insidiously and spread
deceit deep into our national conversation. No Government must
ever relent in their determination to ensure that we are always
one step ahead of those who seek to harm or to undermine our way
of life. We must always be on the side of the public we seek to
serve and protect. That is why we strongly support the
Government’s actions in taking forward the proscription order
before us.
(Con)
My Lords, I thank the three noble Lords who have contributed to
the debate. I would very much like to associate myself with the
remarks of the noble Lord, , thanking our security services
and our police forces, and those in government—many of whom are,
as noble Lords will be aware, in the Home Office—who are very
engaged in this subject, and who keep us safe.
I shall do my best to address as many as possible of the points
that have been made. If I miss anything, I will, of course,
commit to write—and just to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Purvis,
I can say that a letter is on its way.
I shall briefly give the House some key facts, in terms of the
number of organisations proscribed in this country. There are
currently 79 proscribed terrorist organisations, in addition to
the 14 Northern Ireland-related terrorist organisations that were
proscribed before 2000, and 38 terrorist groups have been
proscribed since 2010—a very depressing statistic indeed, as the
noble Lord, Lord Purvis, noted. The most recent proscription
order came into force in September 2022, when the Wagner group
was proscribed. I think all the noble Lords here participated in
that debate.
Of course, the Government will always consider the full range of
powers available to tackle threats on our soil or against our
people and interests. We will continue to make use of our
counterterrorism powers, including the proscription tool, where
appropriate, to tackle the modern threats we face. The work on
that is ongoing. I acknowledge the bespoke proscription tool for
state threats, as asked for by the noble Lord. Obviously, I
cannot comment on that, but the National Security Act, which came
into force last year, provides robust powers to deal with the
complex state threats that the UK faces in a broader context. I
am aware of his ongoing interest in this, and I am sure I will
continue to engage in discussion with him about it.
The barriers for proscription, and the qualifications and tests,
are robust. As I said in my opening remarks, they are governed by
the Terrorism Act 2000, and it might be worth going through them
for the record. The Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation
if he believes it is concerned in terrorism, and this means that
the organisation
“commits or participates in acts of terrorism … prepares for
terrorism … promotes or encourages terrorism (including the
unlawful glorification of terrorism); or … is otherwise concerned
in terrorism… If the statutory test is met, there are other
factors which the Home Secretary must take into account when
deciding whether or not to exercise the discretion”.
Those factors include
“the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities … the
specific threat that it poses to the UK … the specific threat
that it poses to British nationals overseas … the extent of the
organisation’s presence in the UK; and … the need to support
other members of the international community in the global fight
against terrorism”.
The Home Secretary will exercise his power to proscribe only
after thoroughly reviewing the available evidence on an
organisation. This includes information taken from both open
sources and sensitive intelligence, as well as advice that
reflects consultation across government.
That brings me to the question asked by my noble friend , which is: why has it taken so
long? I have explained how the Home Secretary must believe that
an organisation is concerned in terrorism and, as the House has
heard, since the 7 October attack HuT has promoted and encouraged
terrorism, and celebrated and praised the 7 October terrorist
attacks by Hamas, including in an article that referred to the
killing of Jewish tourists by an Egyptian police officer, which I
referred to in my opening remarks, as a simple example of what
should be done to the Jews.
Elsewhere, HuT has frequently referred to Hamas as the heroes of
Palestine, in articles on its website. As has been noted, it has
a long history of praising and celebrating attacks
against Israel and attacks
against Jews more widely. This vile anti-Semitism cannot be
decoupled from the statements recently attributed to HuT
encouraging and promoting terrorism. But of course, the facts
changed after 7 October. I think that explains the decision to
act now. When the facts change, we change our minds.
On religious communities, obviously I agree with all noble Lords
that the growth in anti-Semitism is extraordinarily concerning. A
number of my friends are affected by it and have said that they
are now afraid to walk the streets in certain
circumstances.6.00pm
(Con)
Exactly on that point, I pay tribute to the Government because
for a number of years they have helped to fund the security of
our schools and synagogues, and so on. Noble Lords might not
realise that, to get into a synagogue to pray, one has to go
through security—that is here in Britain, in 2024. After 7
October, the Government gave the Home Office another £3 million
towards this. Just so that noble Lords understand, just days
after 7 October my daughter called me and asked, “Dad, do you
love your grandchildren?” I said to Natasha, “What’s this
question?” She said, “Should we send them to school?” That is a
Jewish, state-aided school in Finchley, north London. They were
scared to send their kids to school here in Britain. That is just
to get over to noble Lords that this is the problem, but I am
grateful to the Government for their support.
(Con)
I thank my noble friend for his personal perspective, which—I
think I can safely speak for the whole House—we obviously regret
very considerably. That just amplifies the point I was making
that some of my friends have expressed to me that they are also
afraid, in certain circumstances, to walk the streets of the
capital in particular, although I imagine that that applies
across the entire nation. I personally think that is
disgraceful.
However, I thank my noble friend for pointing out that the
Government have made significant efforts to protect the Jewish
community. The Jewish community protective security grant
provides security measures, such as guarding, CCTV and alarm
systems at Jewish schools, colleges, nurseries and some other
Jewish community sites, as well as a number of synagogues. The
JCPS grant is managed on behalf of the Home Office by the
Community Security Trust. In response to the Israel-Hamas
conflict and reports of increased incidence of anti-Semitism in
the UK, the Prime Minister has announced an additional £3 million
of funding for the Community Security Trust—which my noble friend
referred to—that will provide additional security at Jewish
schools, synagogues and other Jewish community sites. This brings
total funding for CST through the Jewish community protective
security grant to £18 million in 2023-24. The Chancellor’s Autumn
Statement confirmed that protective security funding for the
Jewish community will be maintained at £18 million in 2024-25. So
I thank my noble friend for his thanks. Obviously, the Government
are very alive to the fact that we need to do as much as we
can.
On the question about the statistics on anti-Semitism, I will
have to write on that—I am afraid I do not have them to hand.
It would be wrong not to highlight also what is being done to
protect Muslim communities, who obviously are also affected by
events in the Middle East. We recognise that the developments
there can impact British Muslim communities, and they lead to a
rise in community tensions. The Government have made an
additional £4.9 million available for protective security at
mosques and Muslim faith schools this year and the next. That
brings total funding for UK Muslim communities to £29.4 million
for both 2023-24 and 2024-25. We have also extended the deadline
for the protective security for mosques scheme, and invite
mosques and Muslim faith community centres to register for
protective security measures by 18 February 2024. The protective
security for mosques scheme provides physical security measures
such as CCTV, intruder alarms and secure perimeter fencing to
mosques and associated Muslim faith community centres. Guarding
services for both mosques and Muslim faith schools will become
available early this year.
My noble friend did not surprise me by asking about the IRGC.
There is obviously significant parliamentary media and public
interest in potentially proscribing the IRGC. Both the House of
Commons and the House of Lords have discussed this subject on a
number of occasions, with the House of Commons unanimously
passing a Motion in January to urge the Government to proscribe.
The department keeps the list of proscribed organisations under
review and, as noble Lords will be aware, our policy is not to
comment on the specifics of individual proscription cases. I am
therefore unable to provide further details on this issue in
particular. Ministers have previously confirmed to the House that
the decision is under active consideration, but we will not
provide a running commentary. However, I think I can refer to the
most recent public position on this, which was a comment from the
current Foreign Secretary on the proscription of the IRGC. In an
interview with the Telegraph on 23 December, the current Foreign
Secretary said:
“The move you’re talking about is not something that either the
intelligence agencies or the police are calling for. So I think
our stance is the right one”.
That is the latest information on that subject, but I am quite
sure that we will return to it.
The noble Lord, , asked me what is happening
with the counterextremism strategy. The Government, obviously,
remain focused on disrupting the activities and influence of
extremists, supporting those who stand up to extremism and
stopping people being drawn into terrorism. We keep our response
to extremism under constant review to ensure that it is best
placed to tackle the evolving threat.
Building on the foundation set by the 2015 counterextremism
strategy, we have scaled up our approach to disrupting groups who
seek to radicalise others in order to focus on those who pose the
biggest threat to our communities and our security. The
Government’s focus is to use existing mechanisms to analyse,
prevent and disrupt the spread of high-harm extremist ideologies
that can lead to community division, and to radicalisation into
terrorism, particularly those that radicalise others but
deliberately operate below counterterrorism thresholds. Where
there is evidence of purposeful actions that are potentially
radicalising others into terrorism or violence, proportionate
disruptive action will be considered.
The noble Lord, , asked me about investigation
and prosecution of offences. He will be aware that that is an
operational matter for the police and the Crown Prosecution
Service. But His Majesty’s Government are working with
operational partners to support their management of terrorism
offences, particularly in the context of the ongoing crisis
in Israel and Gaza, and we
will continue to do that to realise the disruptive benefits of
this proscription swiftly.
I do not have access at the moment to the Foreign Office guidance
for Lebanon. I will find out what it is and come back to the
noble Lord, Lord Purvis.
In conclusion, the security of our communities is the
Government’s foremost priority. The effort to counter and contain
terrorism is complex and relentless. When action is needed, we
will not hesitate. This is why we have brought forward this
order, which I commend to the House.
Motion agreed.
