---

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

I am grateful to hon. Members for the tone and way in which they have responded to the presentation of the order. Some serious and significant issues have been raised, and I shall endeavour to deal with them as far as I can. If any further detailed information is required, particularly by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), I shall try to ensure that we provide it. Several Members asked whether we could have had a debate on a single organisation, or perhaps separate votes on single organisations. As I understand it, the procedure we have adopted today is that set out in the Terrorism Act 2000. This procedure is the normal way in which such things are brought forward, but I am conscious of the fact that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) in particular raised the issue of an organisation over which there is controversy rather than a degree of consensus around the House in relation to the order. I undertake to look further into it. I cannot say that we will necessarily do as we have been asked, but I am conscious of the strength of the argument. No Member would welcome the prospect of 15 separate votes on such an order—that clearly would not be sensible—but I am conscious of Members’ feelings. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson)—not that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is not my hon. Friend; I have two hon. Friends sat behind me—asked whether these organisations are simply fundamentalist, what is the depth of the activity they are engaged in, how we can get more information and what is the role of Parliament in scrutinising such orders. Again, I understand the point, because all Members of Parliament feel a strong duty in wanting to be able to take a view on behalf of their constituents and in terms of their role generally. Inevitably, I am constrained by the fact that these are matters of huge sensitivity involving desperately sensitive intelligence information, which, if in the public domain, could reduce our ability to withstand the threat of terrorism that faces us. I say to both my hon. Friends that for the Home Secretary to come forward with an order of this nature, he has to be satisfied that these people are not just expressing fundamentalist views, but are concerned in terrorism. We have a definition of terrorism, which is about violence, and he is satisfied that all these organisations—in one way or another in terms of their links to organisations and the activities they are engaged in—are concerned in terrorism. So, this is not simply a matter of free speech or people expressing views. There is a hard definition in the 2000 Act that these groups have to be concerned in terrorism for them to meet the proscription criteria. I ask my hon. Friends to think about that. This is not an academic debate about what people are saying on which we can all take a view; it is a real situation, as the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) said. We face a serious threat and these people are concerned in terrorism. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield talked about the fact that people have been murdering other people. That is one of the reasons they are included.