---

Terrorism Bill

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has an eminent, albeit difficult, position. But it is not as uncomfortable as that of another prominent Liberal, who was said to be sitting on the fence waiting for the iron to enter his soul. This is a Bill everyone wishes was unnecessary. Unfortunately, it is a response to the growing dangers we face in our everyday lives. Whether it is an appropriate response, I want to touch on in a moment. We are very fond of saying we live in a free and democratic society, and in comparison with many countries around the world, that is true and would remain so even if this Bill was many times tougher than it is. However, there is no such thing as absolute freedom, or unrestricted civil and human rights. Indeed, the words ““absolute”” and ““unrestricted”” are incompatible with any acceptable notions of freedom and civil and human rights. Freedom and democracy do not mean licence, but neither are they outraged by reasonable levels of control and discipline in society. Put simply, the most important civil right in our society is the right to go about our lawful business, free of fear, intimidation and violence. Unfortunately, we are finding it increasingly difficult to do so, and thus it is inevitable that governments and the apparatus of the state will respond accordingly: CCTV cameras, more police—many of them armed—ID cards and legislation such as we are considering today, are all part and parcel of that response. I do not find any of that a great problem, even though I regret the necessity. In my time in another place I called for the routine arming of the police, the deployment of the military to assist the civil authorities, a mandatory national DNA register and a compulsory system of community service for all 16 to 17 year-olds. There was a time when I would have found such an agenda anathema but circumstances have changed and so has my response. Ultimately, collective freedom will always be more important than individual freedom, yet too often we have given far too much emphasis to the latter and not enough to the former. My own somewhat depressing belief is that the level of violence in society will continue to increase and the state will therefore be required to adopt more and more robust measures to deal with it. Perhaps we will eventually have to face up to the uncomfortable fact that the days of liberal individualism are probably numbered. I turn from the Bill’s context to its content, parts of which still concern me. The first is the problem of providing an adequate definition of terrorism itself. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is being asked to review the definition. I do not envy him his task and, by the sound of what he has just said, neither does he. We all know that, throughout history, one man’s terrorist has often been another man’s freedom fighter. In the days of empire, we initially referred to independent leaders such as Nkrumah, Nyerere, Kaunda and Makarios as terrorists, only to end up negotiating with them and welcoming them here on state visits. The other major definitional problem in the Bill is that of the so-called ““glorification of terrorism””. If such an offence had been on the statute book, where would those of us be who supported and advocated on behalf of the ANC when Nelson Mandela was on Robin Island, condemned as a terrorist by the apartheid regime in South Africa? I well remember the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister, describing the ANC as a ““terrorist organisation””. That upset quite a number of us and we decided to enter the House of Commons Chamber wearing ANC T-shirts. We might have offended the dress code but it did not offend the law at the time. But we all remember the noble Baroness subsequently being one of those welcoming President Mandela when he addressed both Houses in Westminster Hall. There are times—and we know it—when armed struggle is legitimate, particularly when the struggle is against tyrannical regimes and there is no democratic alternative. I admit that I would have supported 90 days’ pre-charge detention, with reluctance, had I still been a Member of the other House, but I would have done so because I am certainly not prepared to take risks with other people’s safety. At least someone held for 90 days remains alive, which is more than we can say for all those who have died as victims of terrorism. However, the decision of the other place to agree to 28 days seems in line with the views of most senior police officers with whom I have discussed the matter in recent days. Nevertheless, it would be very interesting to test the feeling in your Lordships’ House if an amendment to restore 90 days were tabled. Like others, I deeply regret the necessity for this Bill. I support it but look forward to it being further tightened in Committee. My other deep regret is that I feel absolutely certain that there will be many more Bills like this to follow.