Asked by Lord Godson To ask His Majesty's Government what
assessment they have made of the threat from Hezbollah to the
United Kingdom (1) since the group was proscribed in its entirety
in 2019, and (2) since the assassination of its leader, Hassan
Nasrallah, on 27 September. Lord Godson (Con) My Lords, there is
now an impressive consensus across all the mainstream parties in
this House on the global threat of the Islamic Republic of Iran and
its allies in the...Request free trial
Asked by
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of
the threat from Hezbollah to the United Kingdom (1) since the
group was proscribed in its entirety in 2019, and (2) since the
assassination of its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, on 27
September.
(Con)
My Lords, there is now an impressive consensus across all the
mainstream parties in this House on the global threat of the
Islamic Republic of Iran and its allies in the so-called axis of
resistance. Hezbollah, which has been proscribed here in its
entirety since 2019, is of course the jewel in the crown of
Iranian proxy organisations. Its reach extends across south Asia,
south-east Asia, North America, South America and Africa. Its
part in forging its own unique version of a Shiite crescent in
the Middle East under the tutelage of the regime in Tehran is
well known, above all to many of the UK's closest allies in the
region.
However, my focus today is on the impact of Hezbollah on the
domestic security and extremism policies of the United Kingdom.
Noble Lords will be only too aware that this widespread agreement
on the danger of Iran has been powerfully articulated in
testimonies from the director-general of the Security Service,
Ken McCallum, and the assistant commissioner for specialist
operations, Matt Jukes.
How do we build on this widespread political agreement to shape
more effective policy, the better to protect ourselves and our
allies? The current rapid review of extremism being conducted by
the new Home Secretary gives us a chance to undertake a
reappraisal of counter- measures against Hezbollah, its allies
and its sponsor in Tehran. In particular, the review needs to
look at every aspect of the Home Office's work, from security and
policing to immigration policy. All these functions,
interconnected though they are, are still too often not regarded
as such.
That does not simply mean countermeasures against the use of
physical force by Iran and its proxies. It also means
countermeasures against violent extremism and proselytisation: as
my noble friend of Chipping Norton, once put
it, the need to combat the spread of a grievance culture that
poisons the minds of some young Muslims.
It also includes the disruption and prosecution of criminal
activities by Hezbollah, described by my right honourable friend
MP, an outstanding Security Minister under the last
Government, as the most prolific traffickers of drugs and
children in the Middle East. Indeed, such is its criminality that
the former US FBI official Matt Levitt, in his new book on
Hezbollah, has described it as not so much the party of God as
the party of fraud.
First, we need much more public information from the Government
about the nature of the threat of the so-called axis of
resistance to our society. There is a growing tendency of
successive Governments of all hues—and I very much hope that the
new Government will break with this approach—to take refuge in
the formula that they cannot discuss basic public policy
questions in this area by invoking “operational reasons”. The
term “operational reasons” is thus beginning to suffer from real
mission creep.
There is one other dimension to this lack of information. I
noticed that in recent weeks the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, asked
two Written Questions that to my mind did not receive the Answers
they deserved. First, she inquired how many convictions there had
been in the past year relating to Hamas and Hezbollah. The noble
Lord, of Shulbrede, replied that it
is not possible to identify offences relating to specific groups
and that it would be too expensive to examine individual court
records for that. I have the greatest respect for the for the
noble Lord and have enjoyed my dialogue with him, not least on
the affairs of Northern Ireland, but I do not agree with that
formulation in this case.
Likewise, in response the next day to the second Question from
the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, on how many had been arrested and
charged for Hamas and Hezbollah offences in the last 12 months in
this country, the Minister here, the noble Lord, of Flint, referred her to the
data in the quarterly Home Office publication, Operation of
Police Powers under the Terrorism Act 2000. There is a welcome
breakdown in that document by nationality but, again, not by
proscribed organisation. Once more, I have the greatest respect
for the noble Lord, , not just for his service in
Northern Ireland and his work on the Intelligence and Security
Committee but for being so open and having his doors open to
Members, just as he pledged he would in his maiden speech last
July, but I wonder whether Ministers should start taking a harder
look at the time-honoured approach of the official line—and of
some of their officials—that it is simply not worth the effort to
provide the requisite breakdown by proscribed organisation. The
interests of officialdom are not always identical to those of the
political echelon. At a minimum, surely someone in
counterterrorism policing must know the figures at hand.
In this connection, under the Pursue strand of the Contest
strategy, I ask the Minister how many priority investigations are
currently being undertaken by the agencies on the activities of
Hezbollah and the wider so-called axis of resistance? What
percentage of priority investigations do these investigations
into the axis of resistance comprise?
But the task for Ministers goes beyond that of focusing on the
immediate threat of physical force from terrorism; it also
entails countering in the ideological realm. Thus, the 2023
Independent Review of Prevent stated of the Home Office's
Research, Information and Communications Unit, RICU:
“Since early 2019, the government has proscribed both Hizbollah
and Hamas in their entirety. I would have expected to see
research from RICU providing an in-depth investigation on the
pro-Hizbollah support network within the UK, and a commitment to
do so for the more recently proscribed whole of Hamas”.
The Prevent review was accepted in full by the previous
Government. Will the Minister tell us today what research into
Hezbollah networks in the UK has been or is now being conducted
by RICU and how many Prevent referrals relating to Hezbollah and
key entities in the wider so-called axis of resistance there
are?
I also ask the Minister whether we should not now consider
following the example of Germany's Office for the Protection of
the Constitution—the Verfassungsschutz —and other European
partners to produce regular analyses for public consumption of
key ideological strains in Islamist and other very real extremist
challenges. In particular, can the Minister assure us that
rebuttal is being undertaken by RICU of relevant narratives
emanating from some supporters of all branches of the axis of
resistance?
For example, when the Houthis began attacking western shipping
lanes in the Red Sea, leading to retaliatory strikes, so-called
“anti-war protesters”, as we all know, chanted “Yemen, Yemen,
make us proud, turn another ship around”. The threat posed by the
Houthis and their patrons to our economic well-being is obvious,
and the Security Service Act 1989 states that one of MI5's
statutory responsibilities is that of
“the economic well-being of the United Kingdom”.
Another area where Ministers need to keep a close eye is the
interaction between the security and immigration workstreams of
the department. In the last Parliament, I asked the then
Conservative ministerial team at the Home Office how many
minister of religion and religious worker visas had been issued
to Iranian nationals. It emerged that just under 100 such visas
to enter the UK had been issued since 2005. Doubtless, there will
be many genuine individuals among that bunch, but we cannot be
sure. Similarly, the UK has now allowed 52 Lebanese civilians to
enter the country on religious worker or minister of religion
visas since 2005. Again, information is not recorded in terms of
the denomination or the sectarian affiliation of those Lebanese
citizens who have received visas. Should they not now start to be
recorded as such? Is it not time to consider giving a more
detailed breakdown of those to whom we accord the significant
privilege of the right to work in this country?
Indeed, when the right honourable Member for Newark, , was Immigration Minister, a
review of visa policy concerning Iran was flagged prominently in
the media; was that review ever conducted, let alone completed?
If not, will those issues now be addressed in the rapid review of
extremism policy and security policy being conducted by the
present Home Secretary?
I come back to the long-term question of charitable networks and
giving. Inevitably, after the events of 7 October last year and
following recent events in Lebanon, there will be a rise in
giving to alleviate genuine human suffering in the region. This
is, of course, to be welcomed, but it inevitably poses new
challenges to our overstretched system of charitable regulation
when funds may go to those posing as humanitarian bodies but
which have other sectarian and even terrorist agendas. How many
regulatory cases or statutory inquiries does the Charity
Commission have open in relation to those involving Iranian, IRGC
and other Iranian proxies such as Hezbollah, bearing in mind that
the Charity Commission is accountable to Parliament under the
Charities Act 2011?
I end, as I began, with the point about cross-party consensus on
the threat of Iran and its proxies. Considering the measure of
accord here in Westminster, there is no excuse now for an absence
of action. As things have worked so far with successful
proscriptions, there is a suspicion that it is too often treated
as a symbolic act, as a kind of glass ceiling, and too often not
implemented in full. I very much hope that this will change with
the outcome of the forthcoming review by the Home Secretary. If
the Minister in responding today can show real progress towards
addressing the global threat of the axis of resistance more
effectively, bringing all the elements of national power
together, both at home and abroad, then I am sure those measures
will enjoy the widest possible support across this House.
7.24pm
(Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, , for affording us the
opportunity to examine this Question today. It is a debate that
is timely and of significance, and the forensic nature of his
opening remarks is wholly concordant with the significance of the
issues we are discussing. Mindful of severe time constraints, I
wish to ask my noble friend the Minister three questions. Before
I do, though, I think it is worth examining one of the premises
of the Question before your Lordships' House, and that is the
efficacy of proscription.
In examining that, I do not resile from the basis on which
Hezbollah was proscribed in its entirety in 2019. I concur with
the judgment of the then Home Secretary that a distinction
between the political and military elements of Hezbollah had
become academic, if not meaningless. Equally, I concur with all
those who have highlighted the appalling anti-Semitism that is
not an adjunct to Hezbollah's world view but central to it.
But we must be clear that such proscription largely is a symbolic
gesture, offering British police the ability to prevent open
displays of support domestically, but little more. Our
proscription of Hezbollah does not degrade its operational
capacity nor its ability to foment violence and conflict in the
Middle East. In this context, proscription puts me in mind of
MacArthur's somewhat jaded
observation:
“Whoever said the pen is mightier than the sword … never
encountered automatic weapons”.
I seldom quote that observation, save with disapproval, but it
finds an unfortunate echo in this context.
Hezbollah and those who range themselves under its banner care
nothing for our moral disapproval. In the longer term, the only
answer to Hezbollah is to degrade its capacity, cut off its
avenues of funding and vigorously contest those who seek to give
it endorsement or legitimacy. Given the limited ability of
proscription, it is surely important that the few provisions it
does offer are enforced.
Could I ask my noble friend the Minister about the recent
comments of a Metropolitan Police officer who, in the face of
open support for Hezbollah evinced at a recent march in London,
responded with the somewhat circular statement “Your opinion is
your opinion”. It is, of course, contrary to the provisions of
the Terrorism Act 2000 to display or incite support for a
proscribed organisation. Proscription is not merely a gesture but
an empty gesture unless the police are briefed adequately in
advance of such events.
On a related matter, I should be grateful if my noble friend
could update your Lordships' House on the Government's current
thinking around the possibility of proscribing the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard. I ask that not because I am hoping to elicit
a specific answer but because I am conscious of the possible cost
of so doing in relation to our diplomatic channels with Iran.
In my last few seconds, I would like to ask for the views of my
noble friend on the first speech given by Sheikh Naim Qassem, the
successor to Hassan Nasrallah. In the same address, he claimed
that he “doesn't want war” and is only aiming to “respond” to
aggression while also threatening to strike the Israeli Prime
Minister's residence and expressing his contentment for the
current conflict to last many more months. Given this, to put it
generously, somewhat opaque set of remarks, I close by asking my
noble friend to share any assessment the Government have made of
any changes to Hezbollah's operational approach, consequent on
the change of leadership.
7.28pm
(CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, , for his inspiration in having
this debate and for his searching speech. We look forward to the
Minister's answers.
I would like to approach this issue in a slightly different way.
In my view, one of the answers to the question posed by the noble
Lord, , is by increasing the efforts
that our country makes in diplomacy in Lebanon and the region. If
Lebanon could emerge from its current political stasis and from
the tragic situation it finds itself in militarily, then
Hezbollah would matter but little in that country. It would be
diminished by Lebanon becoming once again part of the comity of
nations.
As it happens, I have a very close friend, Dr El Zein, who is a
distinguished academic working in Beirut. He is a family man who
is connected with many politicians there; he is not a politician
himself. He and I have been speaking every day for the last few
weeks, and he has been sending me his daily diary which includes
his family moving to their little flat in the mountains but with
another 20 people there with them. It is part of what has been
happening in Lebanon.
I ask our Government to recast their approach to Lebanese
politics and to resist merely following in the slipstream of the
United States, which since 2006 has been responsible for what has
become inept diplomacy and the increase of the power of
Hezbollah. The Lebanese people are now hugely angry with Iran,
the proxy warrior that supplies the weapons and experiences
almost none of the grief.
Our Government should engage with other European Governments, as
well as with the United States, and with all parliamentarians in
Beirut, including Hezbollah. I know that our Government are very
reluctant to talk to even Hezbollah members of parliament there,
but that is an unrealistic approach. They do not like what is
happening in their country at the moment either.
Why do we not help them towards, for example, the election of a
new President, through the parliament system of electing a
President? They have been without a President for two years.
There are candidates who could become President of Lebanon who
would be recognised throughout the world for what they have done
as economists, bankers and businesspeople, and in other ways.
Lebanon will not have its place in the world without a new
President. This would also increase the respect in which our
country and our Foreign Office are held. Iran has betrayed
Lebanon. We can help the Lebanese back into a position of welcome
among nations.
7.31pm
(Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank my friend, the noble Lord, , for bringing this important
issue to the Floor of the House today and for his comprehensive
introduction to this short debate. As someone who has lived with
and through terrorism, I want to reflect, albeit briefly, on the
nature of terrorist organisations and what must be done by
democrats to fight them. Iran-backed Hezbollah is a vicious
terrorist group that must be defeated.
There are three elements in the battle against terrorists. First,
at a strategic level, democratic Governments must engage and
destroy the narrative of the group. The noble Lord, , referred to this. Propaganda,
of course, provides a strong crutch to these terrorist factions
and in some cases allows them to justify their existence and
operations to those who do not know better. I would like to see
from the Government a stronger action plan—if there is an action
plan at all—to deal with the claims put forward by Hezbollah and
its proxies here in the United Kingdom. We should not just
condemn their actions but deal with the narrative, including
their ultimate goal of the eradication of Israel.
Secondly, at an operational level, we must erode and subvert the
networks these organisations work through for money and support
generally. Hezbollah, as we have heard, is a global terrorist and
criminal organisation and works through often complicated systems
to build its empire. We must do all we can to make it not just
difficult but impossible for these people to work in the way they
do at present. Sadly, without proscription of the IRGC in the UK,
any threat of Hezbollah will continue to rise under its
protection and support. I ask the Minister why the Government
appear to have changed their stance on IRGC proscription since
taking office in July.
Thirdly, at a tactical level we must be intelligence led to deter
and prevent attacks not only here in the UK but across the world
and particularly in our British Overseas Territories, such as our
sovereign base in Cyprus. It is so important that we break up the
terrorist infrastructure and reassure the public that they are
being protected. In that regard, I pay tribute to our security
services for all their unseen work in keeping us safe.
Strategic, operational and tactical: these are the three levels
at which we must deal with terrorism whether domestically or
internationally. Operationally and tactically, on the whole the
UK Government and security services were good at dealing with the
IRA and terrorism in general in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately,
they did not deal with and challenge the narrative and the
propaganda set up by terrorists and their spokespeople, and we
still live with that legacy today.
I ask the Minister, who knows Northern Ireland very well, to bear
the lessons of Northern Ireland in mind when dealing with the
threat from Hezbollah. I ask him and his colleagues to engage and
destroy the narrative of these evil men, to proscribe the IRGC
and, by doing this, to take the propaganda rug from under their
feet.
7.34pm
(Con)
My Lords, the threat of terrorism has increased. Long before the
recent and welcome assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, we can
recall 7/7, the Manchester Arena suicide bomber—the worst
atrocity carried out on British soil—and others not that long
ago.
Like many here, I have spent my entire life being aware of the
consequences of inadequate security, both national and
international. As a young woman I was trained to deal with
hijackings and bomb threats, and witnessed terror groups such as
the PLO, Black September and the IRA causing carnage and death.
But the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood and the rise in
Islamic extremism across Europe and the West, along with the
barbaric regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies,
are without doubt the most potent threat.
The massacre and slaughter of men, women and children last
October in Israel, along with the hostage-taking, were war
crimes. Yet the UN and its corrupt agencies turned a blind eye
and continue to kowtow to our enemies, such as Russia, North
Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Meanwhile, authorities
here have permitted weekly protests—screaming mobs spewing
hatred, death and destruction of Jews. Anti-Semitism is the order
of the day, with Nazi placards held high and anyone daring to
challenge often arrested and locked up. These people are
sympathisers who are guilty by association and have been allowed
to become emboldened by weak leadership. The police and too many
spineless politicians stand by, wringing their hands and
clutching their pearls like so many others.
Multiculturalism is a myth, while political correctness has
stifled debate, particularly if you are on the right, like me.
Clerics from mosques across the UK are still calling for jihad,
whipping up hatred and brainwashing children. There is concrete
evidence and nothing is done, leaving many decent people too
scared to speak out. As I said a year ago, staying silent is not
an option.
In conclusion, as Lady Thatcher once said:
“The first duty of any Government is to safeguard its people
against external aggression. To guarantee the survival of our way
of life”.
Without that, there is no future. What steps are this Government
taking to strengthen our protection?
7.37pm
(CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, , for securing this debate. I
know, as I read the wording of the debate, that when he refers
accurately to the proscription of Hezbollah in its entirety since
2019, some noble Lords in this House will sigh—noble Lords whose
opinions I respect—and say “Proscription? Is this all we can talk
about? What use is that really?”. I am sure that is an inevitable
emotion that accompanies this debate. However, we are still in a
world where proscription is necessary and required, and possibly
has to be extended for the reasons given by the noble Baroness,
Lady Foster.
While we are in this world, let me explain that for 12 years I
was the chairman of the Anglo-Israel Association. I regularly
argued to my Israeli audiences that there was a requirement to
support a two-state solution. I regularly said to them, “Do not
be obsessed with the ideology of the other side”. Had David
Trimble been so obsessed in 1998 about what the IRA was saying
—every word in the green book—there would never have been a Good
Friday agreement. In the aftermath of that, I was very keen to
say, especially to Israeli audiences, “Don't be obsessed about
this talk of Hezbollah leading to the extinction of Israel and so
on. Let's see if we can have a dialogue; let's see what
understanding we can have”. I am well aware that there are many
people who still believe in that. They look at the reference to
proscription and say that it is the wrong way to go and that a
free-flowing, open dialogue is the way forward, however difficult
it is.
However, the truth is that since 7 October the world has changed
in this respect. I can no longer make the advocacy I made for so
many years as chairman of the Anglo-Israel Association. I still
believe in a two-state solution—at least, I refuse to rule it
out—but I can no longer say, “Forget the underlying ideology of
the other side, in the way that we did”. The ideology of
Hezbollah and its amazingly self-destructive decision to back
Hamas following the events of 7 October show that the form of
dialogue that one once advocated no longer exists. Therefore,
unfortunately, we are in a world where we have to talk about
proscription. That is the realpolitik at the moment.
7.40pm
Baroness of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I thank the noble Lord, . I would like to follow his
excellent introduction by raising concerns about the very same
ideological threat posed by Hezbollah to the UK that we just
heard about. It is extraordinary how normalised it has become at
demonstrations on UK streets that, alongside aggressive,
inflammatory anti-Israel chants, we are likely to see placards or
hear slogans lauding Hezbollah as freedom fighters and rebranding
its recently killed, warmonger leader Nasrallah as a brave
warrior. We might ask: are such attitudes solely the spontaneous
reactions to a brutal geopolitical conflict?
Something that might give us pause for thought are the words of
Mohammad Raad, head of the Hezbollah group in Lebanon's
parliament, who boasted in an interview with Russia Today in
June:
“We're currently investing in protests and demonstrations in
Western countries, especially among college students. We already
have Muslim students agitating, but it's the Western students
themselves who will destabilize their own countries”.
No doubt there is a bit of hyperbole here, but it is really
chilling to hear this explicit threat to the stability of western
society, and it needs to be taken seriously. Can the Minister
respond to the claim that Hezbollah is investing in
demonstrations in the West? Do the Government have any knowledge
of such financial support for UK street protests and campus
encampments?
There seems to be a concerted attempt by agitators to give
popular legitimacy to proscribed organisations, such as
Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis and so on, whose USP is the
destruction of Israel and whose propaganda is dripping in
visceral anti-Semitism. Can the Minister explain how the criminal
offence of supporting a proscribed organisation such as Hezbollah
is understood? When it is so brazenly vocalised on our streets,
but seemingly ignored by the police or authorities, it causes
public confusion.
I am resistant to criminalising such verbal support, not only
because of the importance of freedom of speech—one of those
western values that Hezbollah and other Islamists want to
destroy—but because I think we need more speech to counter this
threat. If pro-Hezbollah propagandists are agitating on campus,
we need to join that battle of ideas to win hearts and minds; but
it feels like there is some inconsistency here. The Government
seem unabashed at calling out some forms of extremism—rather
promiscuously, in my view, calling too many people far right—but
where is the high-profile government campaign to name and shame
and expose the ideas of those peddling Hezbollah et al's hateful
anti-Jewish ideologies?
In a week that has witnessed the daubing of red paint on Jewish
charities, for God's sake, and respectable opinion calling for
boycotts of Jewish authors, perhaps we must take more seriously
the bigotry being peddled in the West and realise just how urgent
it is that we tackle radical Islamist ideas in public.7.43pm
(Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for securing this debate,
though I regret that it is a brief one. The Middle East's
challenges profoundly affect our national security, our social
cohesion and the security and well-being of our citizens. Given
this, I hope more time can soon be allocated to ensure a thorough
debate, not only about the crises themselves but about their
profound impact on communities in Britain, including the Jewish
community, in the wake of the terrorist attack last year.
The proscription of any group that could endanger British lives
and interests is an essential part of any Government's strategy
to disrupt terrorist organisations and their supporters. Whether
it is al-Shabaab, Hezbollah, Sonnenkrieg, Hamas or the Wagner
Group, the Government's response sends a strong and important
message of our society's rejection of terrorism and support for
measures against it. This we must support. But while proscription
may be a visible and necessary short-term measure, achieving what
is best for the United Kingdom and her citizens also requires
more comprehensive strategies that address the root causes of
extremism itself.
Two immediate examples come to mind. The first is Lebanon. While
the original confessional formula—derived from the French
colonial dispensation—was good for civic peace and gradual
democratic development, it created other problems, including an
eventual extension of regional politics into domestic affairs.
This system has been maintained by various groups, particularly
the Shia community in southern Lebanon, where Hezbollah holds
influence. It has also enabled external actors—especially Iran,
Syria and occasionally Israel and Saudi Arabia—to interfere in
Lebanon's affairs. It is tragic to see the people of Lebanon pay
the price for the lack of peace in the region.
The second example is the instability of the Middle East,
including the unresolved issue of a Palestinian state. Addressing
the interconnected challenges of Israel's security and broader
Middle East stability is impossible without resolving the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a commitment to justice and
adherence to international law, bringing about a two-state
solution premised on two states living side by side with secure
and recognised borders, with Jerusalem as the shared capital of
both.
What is my noble friend the Minister's assessment of the future
of the Middle East peace process? If it is truly over in the form
in which we have known it for years, what is going to be put in
its place? For absolute clarity, I fully support the proscription
of organisations that endanger Britain and her interests, but we
cannot treat only the symptoms without looking at the causes. For
long-term security, we must make sure we do both.
7.46pm
(LD)
My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the various
contributions to this debate on the threat to the UK from
Hezbollah. My concern for a peaceful outcome to the tragedy of
the Middle East goes back many years. After the negotiation of
the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in 1998 and the IRA's decision
in 2005 to decommission its weapons, I explored similar
possibilities elsewhere. I met with Hezbollah in Beirut in July
2005, and it asked me to prepare a paper on the decommissioning
of weapons. After it received and studied the paper, it asked me
to return and discuss with it the possibilities for a process,
and I did that. Sadly, the 2006 south Lebanon war destroyed the
prospects for that initiative: of course, groups do not give up
weapons if they think they might need them. Since then, as the
noble Lord, , said, the situation has
deteriorated, and we face a very different world now.
Every community has the right to defend itself, including
ourselves in the United Kingdom. Tonight we focus on the defence
of the United Kingdom. My concern, however, is that, while it is
appropriate, and indeed vital, for the security services to do
all they can to protect us and for the Government to take this
seriously—we will listen with interest to what the Minister
says—it is important for us not to focus all our thoughts on the
escalation of rhetoric and force. That is happening globally and
is leading us to an existential crisis that could envelop the
whole of that region—and much more widely—in a terrible war,
going beyond even that which there has been.
For that reason I particularly welcome the intervention by the
noble Lord, , talking about
trying to engage with those constructive people in the Middle
East and more widely. Of course it is true that this may not
work, but we must be careful not to focus all the time on force
as the way to address it. This is why I called in the SDR debate
for us not only to build up our forces and our matériel but to
focus on the stratagems for de-escalation. In all the wars we are
currently facing, the situation is getting worse; people are
increasingly tossing around the possibilities of the nuclear
option in almost all these conflicts. It is said so easily—it
drops so easily from the tongue—and I think that people have
forgotten the consequences of any kind of nuclear intervention:
they are utterly catastrophic. So in all that we say and do,
while we take care to defend and to oppose those who do and say
what is wrong, we must try to de-escalate rather than add fuel to
the fire.
7.49pm
of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for securing this admittedly
short debate on such an important matter. I apologise to him and
the House for missing the first five seconds of his remarks.
I will make three short points, picking up some of the points
made by others. First, who or what is Hezbollah? It is an Iranian
proxy. Iran's recent direct attacks on Israel are a stark
reminder of the existential threat that Israel faces. These
Benches unequivocally support Israel's right to defend itself,
including in Lebanon against Hezbollah, whose attacks have led
thousands of Israelis to be and remain refugees, in effect, in
their own country. I hope the Minister can reassure us that the
Government will rally the international community to reaffirm its
commitment to the implementation of Security Council Resolution
1701, which is the basis for the peace we all crave.
My second point is on Hezbollah's threat to the United Kingdom.
There is a clear risk that the UK could be threatened through an
attack on our sovereign military bases in Cyprus. In April, the
then leader of Hezbollah—the leadership of these organisations
has recently changed so quickly—issued a threat to Cyprus, which
was widely seen as a threat to our bases there. The head of MI5
has warned that the threat of Iran-backed terror activity in the
UK itself is very high, confirming that the agency had dealt with
20 Iranian-backed plots on British soil in the last couple of
years. Of course, Hezbollah has form for such attacks. Earlier
this year, an Argentine court ruled that the 1994 bombing of the
Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires, which killed 85 people
and wounded more than 300, was carried out by Hezbollah, at the
direction of Iran.
My third and final point is on enforcing the law, and there are
two parts to this. First, in the UK, as we have heard, Hezbollah
has been proscribed as a terrorist organisation in full since
2019—that means that inviting support for Hezbollah is a criminal
offence. But we also invite the Government to enlighten us again
this evening on the current status of proscribing the IRGC. The
noble Lord, , was very vocal about this, as
is his wont, and we look forward to the Minister updating us on
this issue.
Secondly, Parliament makes the law and our independent police and
the independent CPS enforce it. When people chant at a demo,
“Yemen, turn a boat around”, they mean not Yemen but the Houthis.
When they shout, “Lebanon, turn a tank around”, they mean not
Lebanon but Hezbollah. So we as a Parliament are entitled to look
to our independent police and CPS to enforce the laws that we
have passed. We on these Benches will support the Government in
working for peace in the Middle East but also in keeping the
peace on our streets here in the United Kingdom.
7.52pm
The Minister of State, Home Office ( of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, , for securing this debate, and
to all noble Lords who spoke. I have a little more time than I
initially anticipated to respond to the points made. I hope I can
cover them in that time. A lot of ground has been covered, but it
is worth reflecting back.
I note the points made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Helic and
Lady Fox, on the reasons why Hezbollah was proscribed in the
first place. It was proscribed as an external security
organisation in 2001, the entire military wing was proscribed in
2008, and it was proscribed in its entirety in 2019. I put on the
record that this reflects the assessment that was made then by
the previous Government that the political and military wings
were no longer distinguishable and the whole organisation was
concerned with terrorism.
It is important that I begin my response to the noble Lord,
, by reflecting upon that
because, when Hezbollah was proscribed in 2019, this House heard
about the organisation's long history of involvement in
terrorism; I note the reflections of the noble Baroness, Lady
Foster, on those issues. The Home Secretary then was extremely
clear that Hezbollah was an organisation that was committed to
armed combat, that violently opposed the Israeli people, that
destabilised a fragile Middle East, and whose terrorist attacks
had reached into Europe. I hope that reassures the noble Lord,
of Tredegar, that this new
Government share that assessment and that view.
Hezbollah has been involved in, or responsible for, numerous
atrocities over decades. Hezbollah's attacks on Israel over the
past year, referred to by the noble Lord, , have driven more than 60,000
people from their homes, and the terrorist violence directed by
Hezbollah over many years is, quite simply, unacceptable and
intolerable—that view is shared across this House. This House
should support the proscription, as it has previously.
It is important to put on the record that proscription is a
powerful counterterrorism tool. It sends not only a strong
message but a message about the morals of this House, this
Government and the cross-party consensus on that. That has served
not just in this context but in others, as was mentioned by a
number of noble Lords and noble Baronesses across this House. It
is right that the Government call out terrorism wherever it
exists in the world. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Foster,
that this Government share the aspiration that the first duty of
government is to protect its citizens from attack. I hope that
that is not a dividing line between the noble Baroness and this
Government, because we will not stand for terrorist attacks on
our people or for organisations permitting the undertaking of
terrorist attacks.
The UK's proscription regime is respected around the world, and I
say to my noble friend Lord Browne that it is an opportunity for
us to ensure that proscription does in fact make it harder for
Hezbollah to finance and fundraise. It makes its assets subject
to seizure as terrorist property, and it makes it an offence to
wear clothing or carry articles in a public way to arouse
reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter
of Hezbollah. Those linked to Hezbollah may be excluded from the
UK using immigration powers. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady
Fox, that those are severe and strong penalties, and it is the
job of the law enforcement agencies to make and continue that
assessment. RICU, which has been mentioned in this debate,
continues to make ongoing assessments of these matters, reporting
to Ministers across government. Those are key issues that we need
to reflect on concerning the powers that can be exercised by this
Government.
A number of issues were raised, and I will refer to each in turn.
First, what are the Government doing to tackle individuals who
support terrorist organisations such as Hezbollah in the UK and
online? The tools and powers captured in government policy on
Pursue, Prevent, Protect and Prepare are flexible and agile
enough to make the assessment—with the support of the security
services, the crime agencies and RICU—to ensure that the
Government can tackle all forms of terrorism, including support
for proscribed organisations.
In response to the noble Lord, , I say that this House should
note that, since October last year, there has been a 15% increase
in intelligence submissions following the 7 October attacks,
compared with the same period the previous year. By June, the
national counterterrorism referral unit had received more than
3,000 public referrals relating to the conflict between Israel
and Hamas. We will take those issues into account, assess them
and examine them in key ways. Some of those were due to other
forms of radicalisation, but certainly there is an assessment
that that pressure is still there, which is why proscription
exists to date.
The noble Lords, and Lord Carlile, mentioned
the relationship with Lebanon. I think they would wish it to be
reconfirmed that the UK Government have given aid to the Lebanese
authorities of some £10 million in the last month to respond to
issues of shelter and reduced access to clean water. But there is
a need to ensure that we have that dialogue and communication,
which were mentioned, to tackle some of the long-term areas of
concern. To do that, we need a dividing line—and proscription is
it—between this Government, their international responsibilities
and organisations that seek to commit terrorism.
That brings me on to the assessment, rightly mentioned by the
noble Lord, , made by the director-general
of MI5, who outlined on 8 October that, since the start of 2022,
the UK has responded to 20 Iran-backed plots presenting
potentially lethal threats to British citizens and UK residents.
This debate is on Hezbollah, but he has mentioned the link with
Iran, and it is important that we recognise that link to
date.
We have been clear that the behaviour of the Iranian regime,
including the actions of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps,
poses a threat to the safety and security of the United Kingdom
and our allies. That is why we will continue to take strong
action and hold the Iranian regime to account. More than 450
Iranian individuals and entities have been sanctioned to date,
including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in its entirety.
As the Home Office, we will lead work on countering those Iranian
state threats, making use of the full breadth—and please
understand what I mean by that—of expertise of this Government
and our world-class intelligence services and law enforcement
agencies.
A specific question was asked about proscribing the Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps. I am clear that Iran has malign
activities and those activities, including the work of the IRGC,
are unacceptable. We will continue to keep the full range of
tools and powers available to us to tackle the threats that we
face from Iran under continuous review. Both the noble
Baronesses, Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee and Lady Foster of Oxton,
raised a similar issue and both understand, I hope, what that
sentence means in terms of our continued assessment of those
powers.
My noble friend Lord Browne, among others, mentioned policing of
public disorder and the response by police officers to particular
protests. As someone who has taken part in many a protest, not
necessarily on this topic, I fully accept, understand, respect
and wish to have the right of peaceful protest entrenched in our
society, but that does not extend to criminal activity. The
proscription order on Hezbollah sets down certain actions which
are dividing lines between peaceful protest and criminal activity
and spreading hate. I say to my noble friend who raised the issue
of comments that he has reported from police officers that I
think we should give the police powers to act on criminality when
they make that judgment. It is not for me, as a Minister, to
determine whether a criminal act has taken place, but it is for
the police to make their judgments, to use the powers that are
there independently—rightly—of government operationally to ensure
that if criminal activity in protests takes place, it is dealt
with by the police authorities.
Overall, our priority as a Government is to ensure that the
decisions that we take strengthen the UK's national security and
support our intelligence services and law enforcement agencies.
However, I am sure that noble Lords will understand, and I hope
that they will bear with me on this, that many of the points
raised about operational issues of the monitoring and
deliberation by our security services are ones on which I cannot
comment because I do not wish to give succour to anyone. We
cannot routinely comment on whether groups are being considered
for proscription; we cannot routinely comment on operational
activities. However, the National Security Act 2023 provides a
significant toolkit for us to fight against individuals working
for state entities, like the IRGC, and the UK is now a harder
target than it was two years ago. We will continue to keep under
review hostile acts against this United Kingdom, including
espionage, interference in our political system, sabotage and,
indeed, assassination. I hope that noble Lords can be assured
that the full armoury of government powers is continually being
monitored. Ministers will be kept informed and will report to
this House in the event of any changes or decisions on policy
issues as a result of that monitoring.
The noble Lords, Lord Carlile and , mentioned Prevent. It is
important that we look at the Government's Prevent programme in
the broader sense; it is at the core of reducing the threat from
terrorism in the United Kingdom, not just from Hezbollah but
across the board. It will continually evolve, and the Shawcross
inquiry in February 2023 had 34 recommendations to the previous
Government about how Prevent can be improved. We have met 33 of
those recommendations. It is important, and transparency is
important, but we will soon release further statistics on the
referral period from April 2023 to March 2024 in a new
publication. I hope, again, that this will be something that this
House can scrutinise.
In closing—my 13 minutes are coming to an end— I thank the noble
Lord, , for shining a light on the
issues in this debate, and thank Members who have contributed. It
is of the utmost importance that the Government focus on the
security of our citizens at home and abroad and the security of
our allies at home and abroad. For this Government, and indeed
any Government, the top priority will always be the security of
our country and safety of our citizens. Through the deployment of
the tools we have, we as a new Government have a resolute
commitment to tackling terrorism in all its forms.
|
