Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Debate between Lord Alderdice and Lord Paddick

Report stage (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 3rd December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friends Lord Paddick, Lady Hamwee and I have put down this amendment not so much for the purpose of tweaking the detailed wording of the Bill, but to raise a wider question about how much preparedness there is on the part of government and the authorities to seriously consider the rationale on which this Bill and counterterrorist policy as a whole is based. There is often a lack of welcome in general terms when people ask questions of a serious order about the whole direction of government policy, but in the area of terrorism it has been in my own experience quite regularly the case that when questions on it are raised, people are accused of being fellow travellers with terrorists. I frequently had that experience myself in Northern Ireland when I raised questions about the Government’s approach. I would be accused, not particularly by government Ministers but by leading political figures in the unionist community, of being sympathetic to the IRA.

There are positive things about this Bill. There has been progress and developments in technology which mean that elements of it are necessary, and I do not argue about that. But in some other ways the Bill is regressive because it is sliding away from the traditional commitment in this country, as distinct from other parts of Europe, that things are legal unless there is a very good reason for them to be illegal. Particularly when it comes to freedom of expression and people being able to look at the other side of the question, it is absolutely critical that we should be able to do that with freedom. That is why I was so supportive of and glad to see that we have passed Amendment 15. There is huge concern on the part of the many NGOs that are working not only on humanitarian and peacebuilding efforts but on trying to understand why it is that people commit themselves to terrorist activities.

We had to do that in Northern Ireland. For many years the received wisdom in this House and the other place and indeed in government generally was that the only way to deal with terrorism was through suppression—to put it down. That is all very well if it works, but it did not work. When the noble Earl the Minister responded in an earlier debate on this Bill by saying, “We are going with the grain of the Terrorism Act 2000”, the question for me was: yes, and has the 2000 Act worked? I do not mean has it worked in terms of the courts and there not being any adverse decisions, but has it worked in terms of terrorism being less of a threat to us now than it was when that Bill was passed in 2000? Terrorism has changed enormously over the period since 2000. At the time many things were happening that we are familiar with in this part of the world, but since then there have been two major developments in terrorism. Most terrorism in the world now is either Islamist of various kinds in its background or it is right-wing white terrorism, which is getting worse and is much less reported. The concern we are trying to express in this amendment is that we should be able to ask the difficult questions without being accused or in danger of questions being asked about our commitment to deal with the problem of terrorism.

When I listened to the noble Earl talking about “going with the grain of the Act”, I could not help but think of the phrase for which I am afraid Lord Denning will always be remembered in Ireland. He said that if it was the case that the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four were not guilty, then it was because the West Midlands police had been lying, and that was too appalling a vista to contemplate. It may have been a vista too appalling to contemplate, but eventually it had to be contemplated because the truth is that they had lied. Eventually Lord Denning himself accepted that.

The problem is this: there is a real danger that the whole direction of policy, which is about the suppression of terrorism, is based on a complete misunderstanding. The misunderstanding is that people behave in an extreme way because they think in an extreme way. That is not the case. People act in an extreme way because they have extreme feelings, not extreme thoughts. I know lots of people with all sorts of extreme thoughts who would not dream of acting on them. I often say that many people believe in heaven but if you say to them, “Would you like to go there this afternoon?” they say, “Actually, I’m not in any great hurry”. People can have a lot of thoughts, but the question is whether they have the emotional motivation to act on them. I do not believe for a minute that the beliefs of people such as Gerry Adams and the late, lamented Martin McGuinness about a united Ireland, or even the strategy that they followed, changed but their feelings changed because they no longer felt that they, their people and their culture were being humiliated, disrespected and kept from making changes through democratic politics. The feelings about things changed. If we do not understand and address that, we will head into terrible trouble.

Some time ago, I had a long conversation with an old friend who ran the CIA for years. I asked him why America is making the same mistakes over and over again. It made the same mistakes in Afghanistan as it did in Vietnam. It made the same mistakes in Iraq as we did. When we went into Libya, we did not have to deal with things in the way we did. We made a right mess of it. The question of Syria has been spoken about. None of these things are getting better. They are all getting worse. At what point do we start asking serious questions about a rationale that says that stronger security measures are the way to deal with this issue? My friend said, “We no longer engage with people in the Middle East and listen to what they have to say so we don’t really know what’s going on with them. What’s being done is completely counterproductive. Years ago, I used to spend my time going to meet the leadership of Hamas, Hezbollah, Israeli settlers and others”. By the way, No. 10 was very happy to hear the results of those conversations at that time. Why did he have those meetings? It gave an insight into what is going on.

The Bill’s approach says, “Don’t engage with people. Ban everything they’re saying. Stop everything that anybody is doing to engage with them. Isolate them more”. There is no evidence that this works. In fact, I fear that the approach that has been taken is the kind that would be taken by a bad doctor who says, “If the medication is not working, double the dose”. What usually happens there is that you end up poisoning the patient. There is a real danger in the Bill, which my colleagues and I felt it necessary to mark out—not because we expect the Government suddenly to say that they got it all wrong and should stop the Bill. That is not the purpose of the amendment. We are trying to see whether there is an understanding that we need to question the rationale for the approach to terrorism in the Bill and in other ways. Otherwise, we will find ourselves locked into a kind of groupthink, which will produce a negative outcome that none of us in this Chamber wants.

There is also a danger of not just illegality but a chill factor for people speaking and thinking about these things. For example, phrases such as “giving reasonable excuse” for some of the work done by NGOs and others are used. What kind of language is that? Should we tell people that they need to give reasonable excuse to the authorities or should we encourage them to go into dangerous situations and risk their lives because it benefits us and the global community? We should not expect them to provide that excuse. The chill factor is quite clear. What do I do with students who ask, “Should we go and do some research in the Middle East to try to find out what’s going on?” After not just a Bill such as this one but recent events there, it is clear that this will be very discouraging, even for people at a post-doctoral level. That will mean that our approach will not be based on real evidence, understanding or appreciation of the problems.

We tabled the amendment to say, not just in the context of the Bill, that we can change some of the approaches, such as those in Amendment 15. We are also asking whether we can think more seriously about an alternative way of understanding what is going on when people engage in terrorism, rather than simply believing in suppression. Suppression did not work out in my part of the United Kingdom. Eventually, the Government had to do all sorts of things that they said they would never do because it was the only way to deal with what was ultimately a political problem, not merely one of law and order. I beg to move.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s comments. We on these Benches have for some time had a concern about the so-called conveyor belt theory that radical, non-violent, extreme views necessarily lead to radicalisation and violence. Many groups in this country hold what most of us would consider to be extreme views, such as fundamentalist Christian groups and ultra-Orthodox Jewish groups, where we have no concerns at all that their extreme views will lead to radicalisation and violence.

There are other factors at play that receive no consideration as far as the Bill’s measures are concerned. We also express our concern that the Bill would tend to put people off debating extreme views, during which the counternarrative can be expressed, peoples’ dangerous views can be openly debated and their ideas shown to be false. The Bill and other measures like it are likely to close down that debate. Ultimately, a battle of ideas is the way to address the underlying issues rather than the approach the Bill takes.