---

Terrorism Bill

My Lords, I concur almost entirely with the detailed critique of the Bill made from these Benches and indeed Cross-Bench Conservative and Labour Benches. I propose for a few minutes to confine my remarks to terrorist motivation—or, as it is called, hearts and minds. If the real answer to terrorism was the legislation of unprecedented numbers of criminal offences and state powers, we would be the safest country on earth. As we have experienced, however, that path exemplifies the law of diminishing returns. So, too, police advice is far from conclusive. They are indeed the experts on the hardware of crime, but when it comes to the political and cultural context of terror, it is noble Lords, our colleagues in the Commons and civic leaders who have responsibility for considering and deciding. So how does one influence hearts and minds to minimise terrorist outrage? It is easy to forget that would-be terrorists, in terms of their ardour and sense of grievance, are not in a fixed state of mind; it waxes and wanes along with their sense of alienation and indignation. That, I suggest, will be closely related to what we in this place and those in the other place decide to do in the Bill. I am talking now of the Muslim communities, who feel particularly vulnerable and targeted by the provisions in this Bill. One damaging aspect of the panicky hysteria of too many tabloids, megaphoning their readers on how to stamp out terrorism, is to elide suspicion with guilt. The alleged terrorist is implicitly assumed to be guilty. That approach wholly overlooks the angst—sometimes, indeed, the hatred—generated among vulnerable communities by what they perceive as unfairness, for example in the form of false imprisonment. That then becomes, as others have said, a recruiting sergeant for the very thing the new law is designed to prevent. Although the comparison with the IRA at the height of its unscrupulous violence, very effectively made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the present terrorism has its limits, they share a context. The IRA could only carry on the armed struggle with widespread support—or, at least, non-opposition—from within the Catholic community. It was essential, for both their self-justification and safety, that they had such support. This also, of course, frustrated British intelligence. It is because that support was slowly but surely eaten away by the effective and reconciling policies of successive British governments that we have climbed out of the abyss in Northern Ireland. In saying that, I do not underestimate continuing problems and difficulties. It seems to me completely misconceived to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Stratford, said, that the Bill should not be amended because, as he put it, he is not prepared to take risks with other people’s safety. That is to evade the harsh reality that individual and collective freedoms and security are truly interdependent. Lowering legal standards, legal protections and due process may, I suppose, save some lives immediately, but at the cost of many more lives in future times, as home-grown terrorism is fuelled, fatally, by that ineffectual and, as it is perceived, unjust process. Lastly, I think this debate would lack an essential dimension if we overlooked the impact of British foreign policy on the problems of our own Muslim communities. There can be no shadow of doubt, I fear, that our engagement in Iraq, the inadequacy—as many see it—of our engagement with the Israel/ Palestine problem and, indeed, other areas of our foreign policy, have made a significant contribution to the problems that we are grappling with. We need to remember that, because if we do not, we will not get this complex balancing act correct.