---

Terrorism Bill

My Lords, in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill today, I speak from the particular experience over the past few years of endeavouring to tackle the issue of terrorism in an international context. Many of your Lordships know far more than I about the powers of the Home Office and the police in dealing with terrorism. Others have great expertise in our legal system and how well or badly equipped we are to deal with the terrorist threat in our courts. Still others are well versed in the powers and practices of the special services, as evidenced by the excellent debate in your Lordships’ House on intercept evidence last Friday. My experience over the past few years, however, has been in dealing with the international aspects of terrorism—our dialogue with overseas countries about how we tackle this shared threat most effectively and how we co-operate where we can. Crucially, like many others working in the field, I have concentrated on how we fulfil our obligations and deep-seated desire to uphold human rights and human dignity; not only of those who may be, or are thought to be, involved in terrorism, but also of the innocent victims of terrorism, actual and potential: the rights of those killed, maimed or shattered for ever by those loss of those loved, through an act of terrorism. I shall confine my arguments to the three aspects of the Bill which have caused most controversy: first, the establishment of a new offence of encouragement to acts of terrorism; secondly, the measure which widens the grounds for proscription to include the glorification of terrorism; thirdly, the extension of the period of detention to 28 days. We are all aware of the international nature of terrorism today. It is different from the terrorism that most of us have lived through; for example, in relation to Northern Ireland. Suicide bombing is different. The terrorist who is not only reckless of his or her own life, but positively seeks their own death as an intrinsic part of that terrorism, is very different from one who needs escape and shelter after the carnage they cause. For the suicide bomber, there is no negotiation. Whatever the grievances or injustices, perceived or real, that have lead to the decision to perpetrate terrorism, the suicide bomber’s objective is to destroy not only the target of their terrorism, but to destroy themselves too. An individual who straps explosives around their body and gets on a bus or train in London, Madrid or Tel Aviv; who walks into a hotel in Sharm el-Sheik, a wedding in Amman or a nightclub in Bali; who knows that they must stand next to those who are sitting in order to cause the maximum number of fatalities—that person needs neither a support team nor an extensive group or planners, nor a safe haven. We often talk about terrorist activity today as if it is carried out by organisations with recognisable structures and hierarchies. But all too often, today’s terrorism is very different. It is less organisation-based and more movement-based. Networks exist, but they are often not the hierarchical organisations which many of us would recognise. Movement-based terrorism peddles its special band of hatred through direct incitement; through encouragement, mainly of young people, to emulate those who are held up as martyrs for their own acts of mass murder through direct glorification of the devastation and death that they have caused. Those who object to the inclusion of these measures because they believe they are too broad or too precise do so, I know, through the best of all possible motives; to protect freedom of expression and the rights we all cherish in a democratic society to speak out against perceived or real tyranny. But the fact is that, in the struggle against terrorism, those who incite—those who encourage and glorify terrorism—have a huge advantage over those of us who believe in democracy, the rule of law and human rights. The very language of democracy—of human rights and freedom of expression—is anathema to them. By contrast, the language of extremism is familiar, relying as it does on absolute and authoritarian views which brook no argument. In short, we believe that everybody has the right to argue their case. They believe in their right to suppress that argument and the democratic debate that goes with it. In discussing these issues, as I have extensively over the past few years, I have come across two recurring themes—and two recurring themes increasingly in the past year or so. One is a fear that there may be growing hostility to the Muslim community in the United Kingdom, and that Muslims may be likely to suffer from any new laws to combat terrorism. The second is that, for far too long, the United Kingdom has been soft on extremists and soft on terrorism. It is claimed that we allow individuals to use and abuse our liberal laws to promote instability in their home countries. Now, it is claimed, we are getting a taste of our own medicine. That is hard to hear, I know, but I hear these themes too often to ignore them. I believe that both need answering robustly. Those in another place have changed the Bill in the period of detention permissible. That is of course their right in a democracy, but in a democracy I can also say: I believe that to be a profound misjudgment. I know, from experience, how long it takes to deal with issues of terrorism overseas—not just on a theoretical basis, but in dealing with practicalities. There are issues of information exchange which might impinge upon sovereignty; procedures which may be unconstitutional in one jurisdiction and permissible in another; police systems and interior ministries; courts which vary enormously in terms of the evidence permissible and the role of lawyers. Internationally, we are not yet sufficiently integrated in our approach for matters to move quickly, even where there is certainty as to the identity of a suspect. Where there is a degree of uncertainty, the problems are hugely compounded, which does not even begin to touch on the delicate and sensitive issues surrounding specialist agencies. I have no doubt that in this great dilemma—of the need for security to be balanced against the rights of some—our laws need to be more robust if we are to fulfil our first duty; to protect the safety and security of the people of this country. So I hope that when we come to debate the Bill in detail we shall be thinking not only of theories but of facts—of what really happens when security fails. I hope we shall think not only of the few who want to destroy innocent lives, but of the many who deserve protection, and who want and expect their democracy and human rights to be protected by this Parliament.