---

Terrorism

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Judd for giving the House this opportunity to discuss the British, G8 and EU efforts to combat global terrorism. The noble Lord is a dedicated and distinguished internationalist and a democrat to his fingertips. We share his disgust for terrorist methods. They strike at the values that we hold most dear, which is why he says that over-reaction to them can itself damage those values. We share the belief that we must defend those values. I am grateful to all other noble Lords who have contributed. I especially welcome the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, on his maiden speech. After a decade of service in another place—and, by the way, a 3–3 draw is not a bad result in many circumstances—I know that he will bring valued expertise to this House, due to his deep knowledge of foreign affairs, which was so evident today. I look forward to hearing him on many occasions. Let me start with the threat. My noble friend Lord   Judd appeals to me to agree that reasonableness, respect for human rights and the many other values he expressed are essential. Of course I do. Who could disagree with them? They are a huge bastion for all of us. But on occasions, they are not enough to stop bullets or to dissuade bombers. The noble Lord, Lord   Garden, asked whether we accept that in taking the stance we have taken, we may be in for a century in which the struggle against bullets and bombs may be lost. I may be paraphrasing him incorrectly, but I believe that it is there to be won. Any discussion on counter-terrorism, must start with the realistic assessment of the threat. The United Kingdom and our international partners have faced terrorism previously, as noble Lords have said. But, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, made clear, the global terrorism of al-Qaeda and its affiliates poses a threat on an unprecedented scale. These terrorists have a global ambition and reach. They use modern media to spread their propaganda and to sustain their networks. They have attracted recruits and supporters across the world. Their ideology is adaptable to many causes, local and international. They assert—and it is a lie—that the West is a threat to Islam and that violence is the only proper response. Al-Qaeda and its affiliates are ambitious and innovative. They are prepared to use any means to mount attacks, no matter how indiscriminate and no matter what the consequences for the victims or themselves. It is true to say that suicide bombers add a totally different ingredient. Some aspire to use chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons. They are prepared—indeed, eager—to kill in large numbers. The scale of recent terrorist violence is unprecedented. In the past five years, as many as 4,000 people have died in terrorist attacks linked to al-Qaeda and associated groups. I have no doubt whatever that we remain among their most clear targets. British interests and citizens were directly targeted in attacks in Istanbul, Saudi Arabia and Doha. No government, of whatever persuasion, could conceivably ignore a threat which has killed hundreds of their citizens in four years. We will not do so. British citizens are entitled to expect their Government to protect them. We are determined to do so. It is thanks to the skill and vigilance of our intelligence agencies and police services that attacks in the United Kingdom have been disrupted before they could be mounted. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, is right to say that we should attend to suicide bombers and others becoming part of that tangible threat in this country. To combat this global and unprecedented threat, the United Kingdom Government have adopted a four-part strategy, so close to the prescription of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. The immediate imperative is to pursue terrorists and those who support them. We must do all we can to make it difficult for terrorists to plan and commit attacks. This means disrupting their logistics, their means of communication, their finances and their travel. It means tracking and apprehending them and bringing them to justice. And I wholly take the point about bringing them to justice. The noble Lord, Lord Garden, said that sometimes it involves us in taking military action and he cited the use of aircraft in western Iraq. But, with the greatest respect, I cannot accept that were we to desist from doing so, it would lead any terrorist to give up. I do not believe that that has any realistic prospect. However, I accept explicitly, and in the terms put by my noble friend Lord Judd, that in taking action we must uphold the fundamental values which the terrorists are seeking to undermine. The noble Lord, Lord Garden, and my noble friend are right that bad soldiering, bad policing and bad practices in gaols undermine our most fundamental values. We cannot tolerate that and on every occasion it appears we must deal with it—and deal with it openly, as we do with all injustice. We do so because we respect people and regard them, whether citizens of the United Kingdom or citizens of another country, as being equal in our pursuit of just outcomes. Pursing terrorists is only one element of a successful strategy for countering international terrorism. We also seek to prevent the emergence of new generations of terrorists. We need to address the factors that contribute to the radicalisation of individuals and the recruitment of terrorists. We must address each structural issue in turn. We must deal with poor governance, unmet economic aspirations and political and social alienation. We must address   what motivates people, such as local and international conflicts, including the conflict in the Middle East, because it is so central to people’s thinking and to the perception in the Muslim world that it has been oppressed and attacked by the West. We must counter the terrorists’ propaganda in all these respects. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, was quite right when he said that this is first and foremost a battle for hearts and minds. I could not agree more. Hope and stakeholding are essential, and they are often what are disrupted by terror. It is wrong to suggest that respect for human rights   and effective counter-terrorism efforts are contradictory. The abuse of human rights breads a sense of powerlessness and injustice that can lead to terrorism and it feeds terrorist propaganda. Effective law enforcement is a vital short-term weapon to undermine terrorist groups, but justice and basic rights are vital long-term weapons in the attempt to undermine the appeal of such groups. Our strategy also needs to be to reduce our vulnerability by protecting potential targets from attack and by preparing for attacks so that we can minimise their consequences. We must work with our partners. We have done a great deal domestically to implement the strategy, but international partnership is vital if we are to be successful in dealing with an international threat. We work at many levels and with many countries well beyond the EU and the G8 to build co-operation at an operational level and to increase the will and the capacity of other governments to counter terrorism, including on those social hearts and minds issues. Most specific operational co-operation on counter-terrorism is bilateral, or among a small group of countries, according to the particular needs, whether in a police investigation into an individual, sharing intelligence about a network, or discussing how to respond to an attack affecting more than one country. The most effective way is to work bilaterally or in small groups. This co-operation runs across all aspects of our work. I shall give two examples to answer questions that noble Lords have put about some of the work we are doing. To prepare for simultaneous attacks, we hold joint UK-US- Canadian exercises. We did one in April to which we invited many observers from the EU and beyond to see what was done. In response to a point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, we are trying very hard to promote inter-faith dialogue. My colleague, Dr Howells, is co-hosting a conference in Indonesia in July with leaders of the Muslim world to address precisely that objective. Specific operational co-operation exchanges will   rarely be suitable for the bigger multilateral institutions. But the multilateral system does provide a way to set minimum standards and encourage co-operation. Although the UN is not the subject of this debate, I mention that it does have a pivotal role, and I am sure that we all believe and know that. It has an unrivalled legitimacy and reach. It has done a great deal to set global standards for counter-terrorism, to monitor compliance and to encourage help for those states that need it. While the UN sets those minimum standards, we work within the EU and G8 to provide higher ones. Let me turn to each of those briefly in turn. The G8, of which we are adopting the presidency in a few days, is a forum for collaboration, but without any permanent secretariat or legal existence, so its role is to put issues   on the agenda and to gain agreement on how its   members will push them forward. Since the 11   September attacks, the G8 has focused on a series of critical counter-terrorism issues. At the Kananaskis summit in 2002 we agreed policies to prevent terrorists from accessing chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons. We returned to the issue at Evian in 2003 and Sea Island in 2004, focusing specifically on preventing terrorist access to radioactive materials. The Evian summit also saw the establishment of the Counter-Terrorism Action Group to co-ordinate efforts to provide counter-terrorism assistance to weaker nations. That meets three times a year and involves others from beyond the G8, including the UN, the World Bank and IMF, Australia, Spain and Switzerland. At the Sea Island summit, we agreed a series of measures on international transport security, the vast majority of which have been implemented under the UK presidency. In many cases, the standards set by this work, for example on aircraft cockpit security, are now being promulgated more widely. The EU—and the noble Lord, Lord Garden, specifically asked about it—is a very different organisation from the G8. Its contribution to counter-terrorism includes legislative and institutional measures as well as collaboration between states. The EU response has developed quickly in recent years. After the 11 September and then the 11 March attacks, the European Council agreed detailed action plans. These have produced important results. We have established an enhanced framework for co-operation between member states on police and judicial matters. Most notably, we have agreed a European Arrest Warrant to facilitate extradition of terrorist suspects. We are working hard, and will work in our presidency, on the issues which have also been raised in relation to Afghanistan. That is an extremely important issue because it demonstrates both the necessity to interdict terrorism and the need to help reconstruct a whole society. There are great difficulties in that, as noble Lords have pointed out. But those are problems which President Karzai and others are addressing. It is easier to describe some of the military realities there than to identify some of the other things which are being done. But I take huge pleasure in the work that we have been able to assist with, which has meant that most girls are now back at school alongside their brothers, who are also back at school. That is transforming Afghanistani education in the most fundamental way. We are working hard with Afghanistan on the anti-narcotics programme. We have some successes and there are setbacks. In other places such as Colombia there has been big progress in anti-narcotics work; but again, in other Latin American countries there have been setbacks. We work on it very hard. We have worked with the Kenyan authorities in order to ensure greater security in the skies over Kenya. Where we can be proactive, we are proactive, and we intend to remain so. The threat is serious. The noble Viscount, Lord   Bridgeman, makes the point, and I completely agree, that we will resolve most issues in the end by talking with one another. Talk and negotiation: absolutely. When it is difficult, we should talk again. But of course, as we do so, we must protect our people from the violence to which they would otherwise be subject. We have disrupted terrorist networks and averted attacks. We are better protected from and prepared for attacks than we have ever been. It is true that on occasions our response is military, and that is right, but it is also civil and cultural, and it is exemplified by our view that all the issues of security and poverty and   the people’s desire for a peaceful existence are interconnected. The Commission for Africa was an example of how to address interconnected issues. International co-operation has developed considerably. We have had successes, but threats remain. We will continue to combat terrorism, working with our partners in the EU and the G8 and beyond. But we will combat international terrorism and we will stick to that task.