Muslim Brotherhood

Debate between Lord Godson and Lord Hanson of Flint

Monday 5th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Godson]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the White House fact sheet “President Donald J. Trump Begins Process to Designate Certain Muslim Brotherhood Chapters as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Specially Designated Global Terrorists”, published on 24 November 2025; and whether they intend to adopt a similar designation in relation to the Muslim Brotherhood.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

It is the Government’s long-standing position not to comment on the detail of security and intelligence matters, including whether or not a specific organisation is being considered for proscription. The Government’s approach to threats in the UK is kept under constant review. We will continually assess the threat picture and work closely with a wide range of experts and partners to ensure that our approach remains fit for purpose.

[Lord Godson (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his Answer. Of course he, along with other Ministers, has spoken about other individual organisations—the IRGC has been discussed in this House, as was Polisario a few weeks ago and other far right organisations—so we do discuss these matters. Secondly, it is not just an intelligence matter; it is a political and policy matter relating to the sectarian agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood, which the Trump Administration believe has also engaged in terrorism. It is not just the Trump Administration: all our key European allies have produced reports now on the Muslim Brotherhood, such as the French interior ministry last year and the German Federal Government and its agencies—the Verfassungsschutz. Why is this country now an outlier in not giving a proper analysis to the country of what threat this organisation constitutes here and abroad?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord to be able to say that we are not an outlier. I am replying regarding the position on proscription. The Trump Administration’s report has not yet been completed. We keep the issue of proscription under review. We will always look at threats taking place from any organisation and act accordingly. We have a number of legislative and security options to deal with that, but we will not comment on the specific issue of proscription at this time.

Extremism Review

Debate between Lord Godson and Lord Hanson of Flint

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, makes a very important point. Rather like policing generally, it is important that any aspect of legislation or policy relating to prevention of terrorism, or understanding and taking action on extremism, has the support of the community for which it is designed and which it serves. Embedded in what we do will be discussion and consultation on the way forward.

My right honourable friend the Home Secretary determined that we needed to have a quick sprint on terrorism legislation. The leaked document was part of that sprint but was not government policy. The examinations of both Prevent and terrorism legislation are ongoing. At the moment, the Government’s commitment is that the two main focuses of our policy have to be extreme Islamist action and extreme neo-Nazi right-wing action.

[Lord Godson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as director of Policy Exchange, and I had the pleasure of publishing this document which cast an important light on government policy. I welcome the Minister’s reaffirmation of Islamism and far-right extremism as the highest priorities.

In respect of the definition of extremism, both the Minister’s colleagues, Mr Norris at the MHCLG and Mr Jarvis at the Home Office, have given apparently contradictory statements—first on 21 January and, secondly, Mr Jarvis on 28 January—on the disapplication of the previous Government’s definition of extremism, which Mr Norris said would be disapplied. Mr Jarvis, in an Answer to a Written Question yesterday, stated that there were no plans to change the previous Government’s definition of extremism policy. Can the Minister please shed some light on the matter?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Of course I can. Might I suggest to the noble Lord that the next time a leak finds its way to him, he puts it in an envelope and posts it back to the Home Office? That would be extremely helpful. I put that on the record for any noble Lord who receives in the post a document marked “Private: not yet government policy”; it is good to send it back to us.

There are no plans to change the definition of extremism, which was set out by the previous Government in March 2024. It sets down three points, which are: negating or destroying the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; undermining, overturning or replacing UK systems of liberal parliamentary democracy; or intentionally creating a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in either of the first two points. That is the definition of extremism. It has not changed, and was not going to be changed. The leaked document did not include a change and it is not government policy. I will buy the noble Lord some envelopes for the future.