Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Robert Halfon

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am very grateful for the intervention and I am sure the Home Secretary will come back to that in due course. The reason I raised the issue of proscription—

[Robert Halfon]

rose—

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will finish the point and then come back to the right hon. Gentleman.

We have to make decisions based on clear evidence. I raise that because of course it is for the Home Secretary, on this as with any other proscription decisions of any Government, to demonstrate that their objective, impartial decision is driven by new and clear evidence. I am sure he will be keen to set out that evidence to the House. May I just return to the point made by the by the right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan)? The Security Minister was very clear when we debated this 13 months ago that his concern was that full proscription could lead to a weak and fractured Lebanon. Clearly that cannot be the assessment of the Home Secretary now and it would be useful for the whole House if he were to set out why he thinks that judgment of the Security Minister has changed from last year.

[Robert Halfon]

rose—

[Dr Offord]

rose—

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I promised the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) that I would give way to him.

[Robert Halfon]

Let me just quote what the “Labour spokesman” said, according to today’s newspapers:

“Ministers have not yet provided any clear evidence to suggest”

that there should be a change to proscribing Hezbollah. They then go on to say:

“Decisions on the proscription of organisations as terror groups are supposed to be made on the advice of civil servants based on clear evidence that those organisations fall foul…The Home Secretary must therefore now demonstrate that this decision was taken in an objective and impartial way, and driven by clear and new evidence, not by his leadership ambitions.”

Is that not the wrong way to treat something as serious as this, by turning it into something about party politics? Given that the hon. Gentleman has heard the evidence in the opening speech by my right hon .Friend the Home Secretary, surely he should get up at the Dispatch Box to say that we are right to ban this terrorist organisation from our country.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I just say to the right hon. Gentleman that I am simply asking what has changed, which is not an unreasonable question. Much of the evidence that has been put forward today we heard 13 months ago, and very concerning it is too. However, I am just asking the direct question: what has changed? I do not see it as unreasonable to provide scrutiny of the decision being taken. I will be clear to the Home Secretary—