---

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2005

My Lords, Part II of the Terrorism Act 2000 lays down a procedure for proscribing organisations involved in certain forms of terrorism. That list, as the Minister has explained, is contained in Schedule 2 to the Act. So far, I believe that there are 39 organisations inscribed in the schedule. The Government are now proposing to add 15 groups to that number. When the Act was passed in 2000, the Opposition accepted the principle of having a list, so we are certainly not questioning the principle on which the Bill is based, nor the procedure that it sets down for proscription. In so far as I have been able to garner information about these organisations—and I share the noble Lord’s concern about the amount of detail that is available—it seems there are grounds for proscribing all 15 groups that the Government have brought to your Lordships’ attention. After five years of the Act, however, certain questions come to mind. The Government have already proscribed 39 organisations. Have they engaged in an assessment of the effectiveness of proscription as a means of protecting the citizens of this country against the terrorist threat? In other words, how successful has been the effect of putting organisations on the proscribed list? Have any of the proscribed organisations put on the list been closed down as a result? Is there any evidence to demonstrate that listing leads to increased terrorist arrests, or assists in seizing terrorist assets—or that listing simply drives these organisations underground and makes them harder to monitor? I use these questions as illustrative of a general request to understand exactly how the Government are assessing the effect of the policy they set out under the Act.