---

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

I agree with the hon. Gentleman in one respect—that we must not proscribe organisations simply because another country with which we may be friendly believes that they are undemocratic. However, I have to say that there are clear cases where Kurdish organisations are engaged in terrorist acts, and those are the ones that have been put before the House. There may be a case for reconsideration at some stage in the future, but where there is evidence, then let us accept it. Two organisations listed today are clearly, from the evidence presented to the House, involved in terrorist activity. They are the Baluchistan Liberation Army and Teyrebaz Azadiye Kurdistan. They pose fewer difficulties than the two that the Minister has included purely on the basis of section 21 of the Terrorism Act 2006. I shall not rehearse the arguments about the clause that were used during the Bill’s passage. There were different views—not about the intent to stop the vile and evil recruitment of people to carry out terrorist acts in this country but about whether glorification was the right term and whether other, more appropriate legal mechanisms existed. Let us not enter into that debate today. There is a danger of moving away from our commitment in this country to free speech purely because people say things with which we profoundly disagree. Proscription is not the way in which to argue against, for example, an organisation that wants the Islamic caliphate or sharia law. An organisation would have to go much further—however violently one might disagree with its views—for it to be proscribed. A significant point arises from the Minister’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). The order does not mention section 21 of the Terrorism Act 2006 as a ground for proscription. The explanatory notes and the Minister’s comments do. Having heard his remarks and the quotes that he read out from the websites of al-Ghurabaa and the Saved Sect, I do not believe that proscription should be based purely on section 21. It may be unwise in legal terms to base the arguments on that section when they extend wider, because they are then open to challenge in court. From what I heard, the words used constituted prima facie evidence of the crime of incitement. I seriously ask Home Office Ministers why so few prosecutions for incitement have taken place when the comments that the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) cited are made openly. They at least suggest an incitement crime. Why are so few prosecutions brought? Prosecuting for incitement could be more effective than the heavy-handed approach of proscription.