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.
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.
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?
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.
Will the Minister also look with concern at the Jamaat-e-Islami UK organisation, which should cause us all concern, given the influence it now has with organisations here in the UK, and which might interfere in elections in Bangladesh?
Again, I say to the noble Baroness that the Government keep all organisations under review and make assessments accordingly. For example, as she will know, we took the difficult decision to proscribe Palestine Action. We keep all these matters under review. I cannot comment or give a running commentary on those issues from the Dispatch Box, and I know she would not expect me to do so, but I welcome her representations.
What the Minister says on proscription is of course understandable; it has long been the practice not to comment before it is done. But will he reassure the House that the Government recognise the threat that the Muslim Brotherhood and related organisations pose to this country, not least in the way in which they have long sought systematically to undermine our democratic institutions in favour of their overall goal of replacing democracy with a caliphate?
Again, I say to the noble Lord that a wide range of offences and powers can be used to counter the threat from extremism, including any attempts by the Muslim Brotherhood to take action that is against the interests of the United Kingdom. That includes powers to regulate charities and to look at broadcasting, education and immigration. It also includes other offences, such as the encouragement of terrorism and public order offences. We will continue to monitor that and, if required, the appropriate authorities—the police or the security services—will take action.
On the subject of extremism in the United Kingdom, can the Minister say whether the Government intend to replace Robin Simcox, the counter-extremism commissioner? If so, by when? If not, why not?
That is an interesting question from the noble Lord. I do not wish to give him an answer today, but I will examine that issue for him. The appointment of the individual concerned is a matter for a ministerial colleague, so I will get back to the noble Lord on that issue.
My Lords, the Minister has been responding to questions about the proscription of a particular group, as well as other groups, but what assessment have the Government made of the effectiveness of proscription per se in dealing with extremist groups of one sort or another? Quite frequently, they migrate and suddenly change their name and reappear in another guise. Also, the process of proscription is often a very blunt instrument for dealing with specific offences that might otherwise be pursued.
There is a range of offences on the statute book on which the security services and/or the police can take action in the event of potential terrorist or criminal activity. The purpose of proscription is to say that an individual cannot support an organisation, and that gives additional power to the state to protect citizens who are subject to potential terrorist or criminal activity. Proscription is defined very clearly by the Terrorism Act 2000, and therefore there are strict criteria where proscription can take place. But that proscription is done for a purpose: to secure an end to what could be perceived to be legitimate support for organisations that foster terrorism.
My Lords, I simply ask the Minister whether he feels that, under the current circumstances, we should be a little more cautious than usual about following the advice of President Trump on the designation of foreign groups as being either terrorists or in other ways outside the realm of law.
President Trump is responsible for the policy of the United States. The noble Lord will know that, before Christmas, the United States produced a document on its approach to foreign policy. We are an independent nation and we will look at any issues with the interests of the United Kingdom. In this case, going back to the original Question from the noble Lord, Lord Godson, the evidence President Trump has called for in relation to the Muslim Brotherhood has not yet been completed, so it would be very foolish of us to make a decision on that issue, which we keep under review at all times, without even seeing what the Americans have said. We will examine the issue, and we will always be an independent nation responsible for our own foreign policy.
My Lords, the Minister said that a range of other tools is available to the Government to deal with particular threats, and he mentioned the Charity Commission. Could I press him a little more on whether this is an area in which they are taking more actions or taking a closer look in relation to the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood and registered charities associated with it?
The Charity Commission has monitored, is monitoring and will continue to monitor the performance of any organisation that meets charitable objectives. I know it is already examining some areas that the noble Baroness has brought forward. It is a matter for the Charity Commission to make a judgment on charitable status; it is not a matter for the Government to suggest or intervene on. I know it keeps it under review and will make recommendations to government if required, which we can act upon.