---

Terrorism Bill

I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate and have clarified and enhanced the concerns I tried to express. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, very graciously pressed these points with great eloquence and I am grateful for his clarification and persistence on the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter, as I said in my opening remarks, must move a little from the specific to the general and from the general to the specific.  It deals with the question of undue influence by people who might have terrorist intent through the financial influence of firms of key strategic significance of various kinds. As the Minister rightly said, I do not expect clarification on matters which have specific security sensitivities. That would cover relationships concerning the Houses of Parliament. We also talked about other organisations; as the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, said, we are really talking about the whole of our industrial, commercial and charitable infrastructure. On the arrangements for ensuring appropriate employment or vetting procedures, I understood the noble Baroness to say that the responsibility lies with employers or contractors. That must be a matter of public transparency. That is not in the realm of the secret and the sensitive; we are dealing with firms such as Texaco, British Airways and others. I am still not sure how much reassurance we have had on the procedures that are in place to ensure that for key posts in those firms, there is adequate vetting for sensitive areas. The noble Baroness, Lady Park, highlighted a point which has been at the heart of my concern. Here we must move from the general to the specific.  There is almost a cartel of security surveillance firms. Security surveillance for a whole range of organisations is arranged through two firms—IEDS and Protec.  The range of those firms is enormously significant, particularly when one of the key financial personnel in that firm has close links with the Islamist regime in Khartoum. Saleh Idris owned a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, and anyone who owns a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum must have very close links with the National Islamic Front regime, which is committed to spreading militant Islam throughout Africa and beyond. We must move from the general to the specific in terms of transparency, safeguards and general principle. Disagreeing for a moment with the Minister, I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, said. We are addressing a specific kind of terrorism: Islamist terrorism. Of course the vast majority of Muslims in this country are peaceable, law-abiding and very hospitable, but there is a definite strand within the Islamic community in this country—and it is incontrovertible—that is committed to Islamist terrorism and is underpinned by an Islamist ideology which promotes terrorism. That is particularly worrying given the relaxation of restrictions concerning imams in this country. Those of us who have followed these issues, read the websites and heard the speeches know that there are people in this country who are promoting Islamist terrorism—Abu Hamza did it freely for many years—and that many people have come under their influence. We have people who are encouraged by their ideology to promote terrorist activities. It is a new scene which the amendment—which I said was probing—is designed to address. I thank the Minister for being so gracious as to call this a delightful debate; it may have been, but I found it disturbing as well. I have not been reassured about the heart of the matter, but I will read extremely closely all that the Minister has said. I will consult with people inside and outside this House who share my deep concerns over these deep issues for the security of our country and of innocent civilians who will stand to suffer if we get this wrong. In the meantime, reserving the right to come back after further consultation, I thank all who have contributed to the debate and enhanced my concerns. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 35 agreed to. Clause 36 negatived. Clauses 37 to 39 agreed to. Schedule 1 [Convention offences]: [Amendments Nos. 143A and 143B not moved.] Schedule 1 agreed to. Schedule 2 [Seizure and forfeiture of terrorist publications]: