---

Terrorism Bill

My Lords, the London bombings of 7 July have confirmed that our nation faces a grave challenge, which, despite our prolonged experience of IRA terrorism, has significantly new features. The international origins of the threat, the loosely organised groups which lie low with destructive intent, and the use of suicide bombers present new problems to our police and security services. But the challenge is not only one of detection or prevention. The strategies and policies that we adopt in response will affect the very character of our society, and we must be both vigilant and discerning. We must begin from the raw human impact of what happened in July, borne by the people who were suddenly killed, maimed and traumatised. Our gratitude and admiration go out to those who worked to recover and relieve them in harrowing conditions. As we reflect on the consequences, we acknowledge the truly daunting responsibility borne by those whose task is to prevent future atrocities and to engage effectively with the causes of the threats. They deserve our informed, but not uncritical, support. On these Benches we believe that a successful counter-terrorism policy must, without excusing violence, understand and address its underlying causes. In relation to radical Islamist movements, our knowledge of suicide bombers suggests that many of them are estranged both from western society and mainstream Islam, driven by motives of revenge, and inspired by perverted ideals of martyrdom, fed by extremist teaching, not so much in the local mosque as in the myriad of web pages that are readily available. Their actions cannot, therefore, be detached from the international situation. As we know from many situations, terrorism feeds on a sense of grievance. Part of the response must be a political strategy that engages with Muslim perceptions of injustice in the United Kingdom and across the world. We must get beyond portraying ourselves or anyone else as purely innocent victims of other people’s wrongdoings and therefore beyond criticism. Counter-terrorism has to embrace long-term attention to underlying causes and the more immediate business of intelligence and policing. Government have the God-given duty both to restrain and punish wrongdoing and to protect rights and freedoms. In striking a balance between the demands of security and liberty, we must guard against the progressive erosion of fundamental rights. Powers once granted have a tendency to be extended beyond their original scope. Any proposal to restrict rights and liberties may be assessed by the criteria of necessity: is it likely to work and is there any other way of doing it; and proportionality: is the restriction comparable in scale with the threat that it seeks to forestall? The problem then is how to weigh various risks against one another. In this light we look at the provisions of the current Bill and conclude that most of them satisfy such tests, but we have anxieties about other provisions. One of the most disturbing meetings that I have recently attended was with a senior London police officer. It was obvious that in his mind it was not a question as to whether there would be another terrorist attack in London, the question was simply, ““When would it happen?””. If that is so and if the attacks are difficult to prevent without much more intensive intelligence, it is understandable that any government would want to send clear signals to the public that they were doing everything possible to prevent an attack. The danger of this is that draconian measures might be proposed which themselves would undermine the way of life of a civilised democracy. None of us wants to be accused the day after an attack of failing in our civic duty; but part of our duty is to keep a sense of proportion in considering fresh legislation. Belmarsh Prison lies in my diocese. Visiting there last Christmas Day, I became quite anxious about the difficulties that the prison authorities were having in dealing with foreign nationals who were then imprisoned without charge or available evidence, with no indication of the length of detention. The normal prison regime involving sentence plans just cannot work in such conditions, and so the duty of care for all prisoners cannot be honoured. Thankfully, since last Christmas, prison detention has been replaced by control orders that enable house arrests, but the Bill proposes to increase the maximum time limit for detention of terrorist suspects without charge from 14 to 28 days. We on these Benches believe that that is about right. The police have made a credible case for some increase on account of the complexity of investigating international terrorist networks. What is less clear is whether such considerations warrant a sixfold increase in the maximum period, as the Government originally proposed. Depriving people of their liberty on mere suspicion, even with judicial safeguards, is a very serious matter. We also need to consider the effect of an extended limit on the attitudes of innocent suspects and the communities from which they come. Some of the Government’s measures raise concerns about free speech and religious liberty. The overworked term ““extremist”” fails to distinguish between people whose behaviour is connected with terrorism and those whose views are simply unpleasant, intolerant or unwelcome. Trying to suppress or exclude anyone who falls under this label may increase, rather than diminish, sympathy and support for terrorists. A more discriminating approach to unfamiliar ideologies is needed. Before and after the July bombings, the Churches have sought to strengthen inter-faith relations. However, relations between faith communities must not be dominated by the counter-terrorism agenda. While bilateral consultations between the Government and Muslim communities are necessary, the involvement of all faith communities in tackling issues of diversity and cohesion must also be maintained. The experience of the Christian Church is that, in a fallen world, understanding and reconciliation are attainable only by engagement—that is, through perceptiveness, hard thinking, repentance, courage and costly effort. The challenge of terrorism is not just to government and public organisations, but to every citizen in seeking a way of life which reflects the justice, compassion and perseverance of God.