Mark Woodhead

Labour Wants New Refugee Routes. First Explain How a Hamas Bodyguard Became British. In 2014, Mohammed Alfatih Naim entered Britain illegally and claimed asylum. A year later, the Home Office granted him refuge. In 2020, he became a British citizen. Today, German prosecutors accuse him of helping organise a Hamas terrorist operation targeting Jews and Israelis in Europe. His reported past raises serious questions about Britain's security screening. The Telegraph has published photographs reportedly showing Alfatih working as a bodyguard for Ismail Haniyeh, one of Hamas's most senior leaders. His father, Basem Naim, was himself a senior Hamas official. Yet Alfatih passed through Britain's asylum system and subsequently obtained citizenship. The decisions were made under Conservative governments. Those responsible must explain what checks were carried out, what information was available and whether warning signs were missed. On 6 November 2025, I wrote about the Hamas-linked weapons cache uncovered in Vienna and the British suspect then identified only as Muhammad A (see below). German prosecutors now allege that Mohammed Alfatih Naim transported firearms for attacks against Jewish and Israeli targets. The alleged plot was disrupted, and Alfatih now faces extradition proceedings. What began as an investigation into a Hamas terrorist network has also become a serious question about Britain's asylum and citizenship checks. These revelations arrive as Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood prepares to reopen Britain's refugee resettlement programme. Around a quarter of referrals are expected to involve Afghan women and girls and Palestinian refugees. Ministers promise controlled admissions and proper screening. But the Alfatih case demands an explanation of how those safeguards will work and what has changed since his applications were approved. Iran has long supplied Hamas with money, weapons and training. Its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has been implicated in hostile operations far beyond the Middle East. In July, the Telegraph reported that suspected Iranian intelligence operatives had been intercepted attempting to reach Britain in small boats. An unnamed Iranian official reportedly boasted that smuggling routes could prove more useful than missiles in threatening London. Against that background, ministers cannot afford to dismiss the possibility that terrorist operatives may exploit weaknesses in our borders and asylum system. The question is whether Britain has the means, intelligence and political will to identify them before they become a threat. Labour has also formally recognised a Palestinian state, while insisting that Hamas must have no part in its future government. Ministers must explain how applicants will be checked against intelligence records, how undisclosed extremist connections will be investigated and what happens when reliable identification proves impossible. The Times now reports that the Home Office is examining whether Alfatih misrepresented information when applying for British citizenship, with deprivation of citizenship under consideration. That raises an even more troubling question. If his connections to Hamas were concealed, how did they escape scrutiny? If they were disclosed, why was citizenship granted? Ministers must establish what officials knew, when they knew it and whether the system failed at both the asylum and naturalisation stages. Britain may choose to offer refuge to those genuinely fleeing persecution, but its first duty is to protect its own citizens, including Jewish communities facing terrorist threats. Compassion must never come at the expense of national security. Before ministers expand refugee admissions, they should demonstrate that the safeguards they are relying upon can withstand the scrutiny this case demands. "German prosecutors now allege that Mohammed Alfatih Naim transported firearms for attacks against Jewish and Israeli targets."

Manchester's Millions. Why Won't Rayner Order an Investigation? Angela Rayner's department has been asked to investigate the handling of hundreds of millions of pounds in public money in Greater Manchester. Campaigners say they submitted two dossiers, one in September and another in October, setting out serious concerns about property loans, missing documents and the conduct of Manchester City Council. They say they are still waiting for a substantive response. Given the sums involved and the political connections surrounding these transactions, the Housing Secretary owes the public an explanation. At the centre of the controversy are £55.7 million in housing loans approved in 2017 by the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, then chaired by Andy Burnham. The recipients were three companies ultimately controlled by Sheikh Mansour, the billionaire owner of Manchester City Football Club. The loans have since been repaid with interest, but GMCA has not publicly disclosed the interest rates or adequately explained why companies backed by one of the world's wealthiest families needed access to taxpayer-funded development finance. The developments produced hundreds of homes, yet none were designated affordable housing. There are wider concerns about GMCA's lending programme. One developer, Renaker, received £615 million by November 2024, accounting for more than half the fund's lending by value at that point. Campaigners now claim the figure has risen to £868 million, although that higher total requires independent verification. A legal challenge to loans made to Renaker has reached the Supreme Court. GMCA successfully defended its decisions in the lower courts, but the continuing proceedings underline the importance of proper scrutiny of public lending. The dossiers also allege that financial viability records relating to four Renaker developments cannot be located, while substantial sections of Manchester City Council's agreement with the Far East Consortium remain concealed. Those allegations require examination against the original records and the council's explanations. There is also a troubling dispute over correspondence sent to elected councillors. Manchester City Council has acknowledged redirecting emails from campaigner Ben Rose to its legal department following notice of possible litigation. It says the arrangement protects the legal process and that relevant correspondence can still be forwarded. Councillors have nevertheless complained that messages addressed to them never reached their inboxes. Elected representatives should know when correspondence addressed to them is being intercepted or withheld. And what has the Government done? On 3 November, minister Jim McMahon was asked in Parliament whether his department had reviewed records of meetings between Burnham's administration and Abu Dhabi investment interests that subsequently received public financial support. His answer referred to GMCA's responsibility for its own decisions, independent audits and local scrutiny committees. He never answered the central question of whether his department had examined the records. That is hardly reassuring when the adequacy of local scrutiny is itself being challenged. GMCA maintains that its loans were made on commercial terms, helped deliver 11,000 homes and imposed no cost on taxpayers. Those assurances deserve to be tested through a transparent examination of the records. Rayner should explain what her department has received, what assessment it has undertaken and whether the allegations warrant independent investigation. The public deserves answers about the loans, the missing documents and the handling of correspondence. It should not have to depend on campaigners and journalists to extract them. If Rayner believes Greater Manchester's financial dealings can withstand scrutiny, she should have no objection to that scrutiny taking place.