---

Terrorism Bill

My Lords, there is no more important human right than the right to life. It is of course the duty of any government to seek to protect the public from terrorist atrocities such as the one on 7 July this year. I well understand that the Bill before us seeks to do just that. The Government have to ensure that sufficient resources and powers are available to the police and intelligence forces to enable them to carry out the important functions assigned to them in what is generally agreed to be a difficult and dangerous situation. In passing, I would say that, to people like me, who are old enough to remember the Second World War, the impression sometimes given that this is the most dangerous situation that we have ever faced seems a bit of an exaggeration. I lived with my family on the outskirts of London during the war. There were bombings by Nazi aircraft every night and daylight raids as well. It is sometimes forgotten that 36,000 people were killed in the London Blitz; many more were wounded and rendered homeless. Then, people slept in the Underground for safety, but were not always protected. There were at least two direct hits on Tubes; hundreds of people died. Neither should we forget the murderous activities of the IRA. True, they had no suicide bombers, but, on the other hand, the IRA kept their operatives alive because they wanted them to be alive to bomb again, and they did so. We need to keep the present dangers in perspective. The Government must strike the right balance, as several noble Lords have said. The public must be protected and, more important, must feel protected. At the same time, civil and political rights, democratic values and the right to free speech and expression—in other words, our essential freedoms—must also be protected, because those elements make up our way of life. Certain parts of the Bill need further examination from that standpoint. The other place has already made a highly publicised decision on one main issue: the length of time that a suspect may be detained without charge. There was a majority for 28 days as opposed to the 90 days that the Government recommended. I believe that that has settled the matter but would point out that even 28 days is a longer time than permitted in a number of western democracies, including Spain, France and Germany. I am glad that the decision has been made; the longer period of 90 days might well have had the result of alienating the Muslim community, whose support is necessary if good intelligence is to be obtained. I am pleased that the Government have decided not to seek to change that decision in your Lordships’ House. Moreover, we need to find out what motivates young members of ethnic communities to indulge in such criminal acts. Those involved on 7 July appear to have been born in this country. They do not seem to have been particularly deprived or excluded and had had access to educational opportunities. So, what happened to them? Seeking to find out in no way excuses the appalling nature of what they did, nor does it come anywhere near ““glorifying terrorism””, one of the new offences in the Bill. Many believe that that clause in the Bill is not precise enough. What does it mean? It is, of course, already a criminal offence to encourage others to engage in terrorist violence. The expanded definition of terrorism and so-called glorification could mean that people who are absolutely against the murderous activities that are taking place will fear that expressions of legitimate views—about, say, the policies of ourselves and the United States in the Middle East—might make them vulnerable to prosecution. The broad scope of the offences could cover any reference to political violence anywhere in the world. Unfortunately, the world is full of repressive regimes, sometimes facing opposition from people who want greater freedom for themselves and their families. That leads me to the matter of proscribed organisations. There is, in Iran, an organisation that opposes the oppressive rule of the mullahs, particularly as far as women are concerned. Iran is a country where Sharia law is heavily applied. Teenage girls have been publicly executed for the so-called offence against chastity. It takes enormous courage to campaign for women’s rights in such an environment. Yet I believe that the organisation to which some of those women belong is proscribed. I wonder why that is? There is a possibility that organisations whose activities are entirely non-violent could be caught by the Bill. I recognise the need to have strong laws to deal with the dangers that may now face us all, but I am anxious that we should not criminalise those who dislike the murderous activities of the terrorists as much as we do; they are basically our allies. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on some of those issues.