---

Terrorism Bill

I oppose the Question that this clause stand part of the Bill. Section 3(5) of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides that any organisation which ““promotes or encourages terrorism”” can be banned by an order of the Secretary of State. That banning is called ““proscription””. Proscription is a very valuable tool. It was not at first thought so by the Home Office. It thought that proscription would serve little purpose, but happily the Home Office changed its mind. At the time of 9/11 I remember feeling a tremendous sense of relief on looking at the list of organisations that had by then been proscribed and finding that al-Qaeda was at the top. While proscription is a valuable tool, it should be handled with the greatest of care because members of an organisation that has been banned are automatically guilty of an offence by the mere fact of their membership of that organisation. I have no doubt that proscription, when it first entered into law in the 2000 Act, was intended to catch organisations like al-Qaeda that are committed to violence. It was never intended to catch non-violent organisations, however unattractive they might be. I am concerned that Clause 21 will do just that. Why is Clause 21 liable to catch non-violent organisations? The answer is that it expands beyond all reason the meaning of ““promotes or encourages terrorism”” in Section 3 of the 2000 Act. The effect of the clause, if enacted, is that an organisation that ““glorifies”” an act of terrorism—whatever that may mean, and we know the problems involved with that word—is to be deemed to promote terrorism, even though the organisation has no intention of doing so, if there are persons anywhere in the world who might reasonably be expected to infer that they should ““emulate”” the act of terrorism in question. That at once leads to all the difficulties that were discussed in Committee on Monday last week in relation to Clause 1. But Clause 21 is worse than Clause 1. At least under Clause 1, in order to secure a conviction, the prosecution would have to prove intent or recklessness. But under Clause 21 the Home Secretary could proscribe an organisation, even though that organisation was completely innocent, merely because its pronouncements were liable to be misunderstood. I am sure that it will be said that the Secretary of State would never prosecute other than in a clear case, and no doubt that is so; and no doubt it will be clear to him if he does proscribe an organisation, but it may not seem so clear to the organisations themselves. I have in mind a letter which I received last week from Hizb ut-Tahrir—a letter that I suspect many of your Lordships will also have received. Hizb ut-Tahrir is a Muslim organisation with a huge following of young and old, and Clause 21 has caused its members very grave concern. I think that most people would regard that organisation as extremist, as I suspect even its own members may do. But it is a great mistake to confuse an extremist organisation with a violent one or one that promotes or encourages violence. One has only to think of Gandhi. Many would have regarded his policies as extreme but surely no one would ever have regarded him as being committed in any way to violence. If Hizb ut-Tahrir were a violent organisation, it could already be proscribed under the existing Section 3 of the 2000 Act. But if it is not a violent organisation, as its members maintain, surely there is a great danger that it would be caught by Clause 21. The mere fact that it might be caught by the clause will surely do great harm to community relations. Like other provisions in the Bill and in other Bills brought forward by the Government, in all probability this provision will do no good at all. But it may also do great harm. For that reason, I oppose Clause 21.