---

Terrorism Bill

My Lords, this has been a good debate, notwithstanding the last series of heated exchanges. I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in it. There has been not one unnecessary speech or one speech that has inappropriately indicated the comments made by others. Noble Lords will know that we cannot always say that honestly. I am also very grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in the debate because of its tone. It has been very constructive and limited opportunity has been taken to make pure political points—although I noted that a temptation was extending from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that proved almost irresistible. On this occasion, he can perhaps be forgiven by me, although I do not know whether he will be forgiven by all. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland, Lord Henley, Lord McNally and Lord Goodhart, for what they all termed the broad support that they have given to the Bill. I understand the breadth of that support, but I also understand where we parted company. I entirely accept what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said: that the security of the Realm is the first duty of the Government. It is a duty that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and all Ministers take extremely seriously. And, as was made clear by my noble friend Lord Foulkes, it is a view taken very seriously by our Back Bench too. It is a burden which rests firmly on our shoulders, placed there by the people of this country as recently as May of this year. We have a duty to advocate that which we believe is right and fair and which will best meet the needs for the safety, security and civil liberties of the citizens of this country. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, for his kind advice but I say to him, in a manner which I hope is equally delicate to the way in which he gave his advice, that we understand that duty and the proper distinction which should be drawn between advice given by the police and the decisions made by Ministers on the basis of all the advice and information given. I also say to the noble Lord that independent judgment was applied when the decision was made by this Government. The Government found the evidence put forward by the police to be cogent and persuasive, and the logic of that was exemplified in the contribution of my noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Aberavon and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. He found the course adopted by the Government in respect of 90 days understandable and he gave voice to why he thought that decision was sound. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark so rightly stated, it is of the utmost importance to maintain a sense of balance and proportionality. That balance is, as the right reverend Prelate said, difficult and proportionality is the key. We have to differentiate between the unpleasant and intolerant and those who would incite and promote terrorism. I reassure him that we understand that too. The challenge of terrorism is one that we all face, and, as my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean said, we have to face it with a sense of reality. I am therefore glad that my noble friend made such a powerful speech. She rightly directed our attention to the change which has taken place in the nature of terrorism: how it has mutated and how the threat has deepened and become less hierarchical, less structured and more diffuse and difficult. The rights and liberties of the majority, whose lives are put at threat, are of significance, and I give praise to my noble friend Lord Brennan for being one of the only voices who spoke solely for the victim. I also give voice to those on our Benches who strongly advocated the right to balance the liberties of the majority against the proper liberties of the individual; it is an important balance, but balance it is. My noble friend put this whole issue in the context of our international position, because the international situation has changed dramatically. The nature of the co-operation that we now have to undertake with others is significantly different from that which we have ever taken before because the threat has become international—it is not a home-grown threat which can be contained within these shores. Past approaches have to be reviewed and the procedural difficulties that are now presented to us are indeed real. I therefore endorse what my noble friend Lady Symons called the ““realities””. It was because of those realities that the detention of up to 90 days was considered a necessity. The comments of my noble friend were endorsed by a large number of speakers on our Benches: notably, and not least, by my noble friend Lady Ramsay with her huge experience of this issue, my noble friend Lady Henig, my noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Aberavon, and my noble friends Lord Foulkes, Lord Harris, Lord Griffiths, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate and Lord Stratford, just to name a few. On the Liberal Democrat Benches, there was a very powerful endorsement in the form of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. He is our—this House’s—independent voice. We rely on him for not only sagacity but care, in the way in which he reviews it. He has not failed us to date. Therefore, it is right that the Government, in coming to their view, took his independent view into consideration. In Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, we find support in the knowledge and concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. In as far as fault can be found with the logic that has been advanced, or the questions that have been raised about the logic, I respectfully suggest that that has not been well founded. The noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord McNally, said that the police could do all of this just with extra resources. That was put to DAC Peter Clarke, the head of the Metropolitan Police Anti-Terrorist Branch, by the Joint Committee on Human Rights on 24 October. When asked, ““Wouldn’t resources be the solution?””, his answer was clear: ““No, it would not””. He went on to say:"““However many resources we had I do not think it would cut into the basic problem here, which is the sheer weight of material which we are routinely recovering in these cases. This has to be analysed at some point and then focused into an interview strategy and an investigation strategy set by the senior investigation officer. At some point one person has to be aware of what is emerging from all this data. It cannot just be a cavalry charge””." A number of noble Lords highlighted the difficulty of what my noble friend Lady Hayman called ““squaring the circle””, between the need to act swiftly and early and the complexity of deciphering the information necessary to pursue these issues so as to do justice and prevent acts of terror. I was particularly interested in my noble friend’s contribution and the interesting comments she made in her well structured speech about the use to which we should put Clause 5. It would be right to give credit to my noble friend and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and the Newton committee. They, in their various guises, have promoted the creation of such an offence in Clause 5 for some considerable period. I say to them and to my noble friends Lord Soley and Lady Kennedy of The Shaws that the Government have not closed their mind to these possibilities. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that we are happy to look at the merits of allowing post-charge interviews in a wider range of circumstances. However, this cannot be a substitute for a longer pre-charge detention period. Post-charge interviews can be of use only if it has been possible to charge and hold the person in custody. So I think it is unlikely that we will be able to reach a resolution of that wider issue in this Bill. My noble friend Lord Soley was particularly right to remind us that this is not internment and that we have come a long way since then. I was very reassured by the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that, having undertaken a comparative study of other jurisdictions, the protection given to our citizens through the legislation and that which we propose in this legislation is sound. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, exhorted us not to apply tunnel vision when we consider the acts of incitement and glorification. I assure him and other noble Lords who fear that that might be the case that we have not done so. A number of noble Lords raised that issue and we are, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Henley, approaching this with an appropriate element of openness. However, one cannot have it both ways. In relation to the issues that we shall come to shortly such as the role of academics and libraries, we have made it clear in all the speeches in the other place that the Bill would not adversely affect them. It is right that the specificity of those issues was not raised in the other place. They are now being raised, and we will look at them. As so many have said, including the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, my noble friend Lord Eatwell, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp and my noble friend on the Back Bench—I hesitated there because first names come immediately to mind and that is more difficult—they know that this is not an intended consequence of the legislation. Noble Lords seek reassurance that we will do that which enables people to continue properly with their duties. My noble friends Lord Judd, Lord Ahmed and Lord Desai together with the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, have raised issues in relation to how communities will be affected. I assure all those noble Lords—particularly my noble friend Lord Parekh—that the Government would never want to clip the wings of such an attractive and lucid sting fly, who makes us think and whom we have found so essential in our philosophical debates, particularly those which have taken place in this House. We understand the contribution that our philosophers and our academics play. We have listened very carefully to the debate advanced on behalf of the libraries and universities. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary was pleased to discuss these issues with my noble friend Lord Eatwell, who I am sure raised all the issues about libraries and academics that any noble Lords would want to raise. If he did it with the passion with which he spoke tonight, I am relatively confident about that. It is not our intention to disable or to stifle proper debate in relation to that issue. My noble friend did have the advantage—I should clarify our current position. There is nothing in this Bill which would be a threat to innocent librarians performing activities in the vast majority of libraries in the United Kingdom. Clause 2 criminalises those who disseminate publications of two types: first, a publication that directly or indirectly encourages terrorism; and secondly a publication that is useful in the commission or preparation of terrorism, and could have been prepared only for that purpose. We have looked at the issues in relation to defences. We will look again at the defence in Clause 2(8), which a number of noble Lords say has given them problems. We will look at ““endorsement”” in Clause 2(8)(c), together with ““examined”” in Clause 2(8)(a). We will, if we can come to any resolution of those matters, come back to your Lordships before or no later than in Committee. Perhaps I may say a few words about the academic position. This issue was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, my noble friend Lord Parekh, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and my noble friend Lady Warwick. Those comments have also been added to by a further letter that I received while on the Front Bench from the Royal Society of Chemistry. I say to it, and to all those who have spoken, that we will seek to address those issues more fully when this matter comes back. There are certain issues I hope to deal with very rapidly. My noble friend Lord Ahmed asked me some questions about Kashmir. Perhaps I may reassure him that supporting or sympathising with a group—even one engaged in violence—is not criminalised by this Bill. Glorification of terrorism is caught by the Bill only if it is likely to incite others in acts of terrorism. My noble friend also dealt with issues in relation to the Terrorism Act. I have answers for all of these further issues. The time is now five minutes past ten and I would therefore invite your Lordships’ indulgence and say that I will respond—save that I would like to make a specific response to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, because her issues were raised both by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. Noble Lords, I hope, will understand why I cannot discuss specifically the individual cases or security issues, not least because some are still sub judice. However, I will study the noble Baroness’s remarks very carefully, and if I can tell her anything beyond the information already given to her by Ministers, of course I will seek to do so and copy any letters to noble Lords who have commented. I would have liked to give a better answer, which I have, to the noble Lord, Lord Plant of Highland, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on Clause 3 and allowing the blocking of websites. I have copious answers for all those. I invite noble Lords to allow me to give those on paper. This foreshadows an excellent Committee debate. I hope that we will continue to engage in this debate in a constructive way that will help us better to protect the people of our country, for whom we all care. On Question, Bill read a second time.