---

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Under part 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000, the Secretary of State has the power to proscribe any organisation that commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism, or is otherwise concerned in terrorism. Proscription is a tough power. Any organisation that is on the list of proscribed organisations is outlawed in the United Kingdom. It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to, or encourage support for, a proscribed organisation. It is a criminal offence to arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation, or to wear clothing or to carry articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that a person is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation. Proscription also means the financial assets of the organisation become terrorist property and, as such, can be subject to freezing and seizure. For those reasons, Parliament must take its role in scrutinising who is on the proscribed list very seriously. On the one hand, the failure to proscribe an organisation that is concerned with terrorism could allow it to have a foothold in the United Kingdom and also to recruit and raise funds in the UK, ultimately undermining national security in this country and beyond our borders. On the other hand, proscribing an organisation mistakenly or inappropriately could tie up a significant amount of resources—involving our intelligence services and others—which is what a proscription order requires. The resources available to our security services are finite and must be targeted properly. As the Minister has elegantly made clear, the order seeks to remove the PMOI—or the MEK, to use a name that is employed interchangeably, which is how I will be employing it in the debate—from the proscribed list. That will, in effect, legalise it as an organisation, allowing it to recruit members and to raise funds in the United Kingdom. The decision in the Secretary of State for the Home Department v. Lord Alton and others left the Government with no choice but to bring forward this order de-proscribing the PMOI. The Minister set out their position and answered clearly that while he will abide by POAC's decision, he and ministerial colleagues do not necessarily agree with the merits of the decision. There remain a number of questions to which Opposition Members would like answers. I shall not rehearse the history of the PMOI; that has been done in detail elsewhere. However, before framing my questions I would like to summarise the history of its proscription in this country. On 28 February 2001, the then Home Secretary laid before Parliament the Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2001, which sought to add the PMOI to the proscribed organisations list. That order was approved by affirmative resolution and the organisation has remained on that list until the time of the order before us. A Home Office press notice issued at the same time described the PMOI as an organisation that"““undertakes cross-border attacks into Iran, including terrorist attacks. It has assassinated senior Iranian officials and launched mortar attacks against government buildings in Tehran and elsewhere.””" On 5 June 2001, the PMOI applied to the Secretary of State to be removed from the list. He said in a letter dated 31 August 2001 that he remained satisfied that the organisation was then ““concerned in terrorism””, as defined by the 2000 Act, in that it"““commits or participates in acts of terrorism””." On those grounds, the application for de-proscription was then refused. In a debate in this place in March 2005, the then Home Secretary repeated the Government's view that the PMOI was"““a nasty terrorist organisation that has to be contained””.—[Official Report, 1 March 2005; Vol. 431, c. 799.]" In October 2005, in response to a parliamentary question, it was said that the MEK had"““a long history of involvement in terrorism in Iran and elsewhere and is, by its own admission, responsible for violent attacks that have resulted in many deaths.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 November 2005; Vol. 675, c. 125.]" Most recently, on 13 December 2007, the current Prime Minister gave evidence to the Liaison Committee, saying of PMOI that"““to proscribe an organisation that has been involved in terrorist activity seems the right thing to do by the decisions of this Government””." As recently as 5 February 2008 in the other place, the Minister of State, the noble Lord Malloch-Brown, said:"““We just believe that there has not been a clear enough renunciation of those tactics…Until we are convinced that the organisation has really foresworn those tactics, we continue to believe it to be a threat to civilians.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 February 2008; Vol. 698, c. 949.]"