Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2014

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Triesman

Thursday 27th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Triesman (Lab)]

My Lords, I support this order. I have a couple of questions, on the basis that this at least was familiar terrain to me at an earlier stage. I thank the Minister for his detailed and helpful description of the purpose.

As the three organisations were being described, it was clear that there had been a considerable period in which there had been a review of their activities and a review against the standards that the Home Secretary applies in making the judgment and then seeking the view of the cross-Whitehall group. In one case—I think it was that of AAS-B—this discussion follows fairly closely on a decision that has been taken by the United Nations. In the case of the other groups, the issues seem to have been discussed in international fora relatively earlier.

My anxiety—it is no more than that—about which I am seeking clarification is whether it is not possible for the UK Government to move relatively faster when threats from these kinds of groups materialise. I recognise and respect the concept of thoroughness, and most certainly it should never be done in a way that does not take full account of all the facts. However, it may be that the reality is that a number of these groups have been operating in a hostile way for rather longer than we should tolerate, and in those circumstances there may be an argument for a methodology that gives more pace to what is required for the security of our country.

I ask that not because I want anyone to abandon thoroughness or the Home Secretary to take precipitate decisions that do not make sense—I would not advocate that—but I want to make sure that at the very earliest moment the calibration of threat shows that the people of this country, and those with whom we also have interests through our alliances and through other routes, are protected. Is there a view that the process could be faster? I hope that that is a simple point, which I make in support of the order being sought.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the purpose of, and need for, this order, which we support. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Bates, for his letter to my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon, setting out the reasons for the order.

As the Opposition, we are obviously limited in the response we can make, since we do not have access to the intelligence that presumably has led the Home Secretary to go down the road that she wishes to take. The Explanatory Memorandum sets out some information about the three organisations that are covered by this order and will be proscribed under Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000. They are considered to be organisations that commit or participate in acts of terrorism, prepare for, promote or encourage terrorism, or are otherwise concerned in terrorism. The Terrorism Act 2006 also included in the grounds for proscription organisations that unlawfully glorify the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism.

These organisations appear to have been involved in activities justifying proscription for a little while, the point made by my noble friend Lord Triesman. One was involved, as the Minister said, in an attack that killed the US ambassador and three other Americans in Libya more than two years ago. Why has the Home Secretary decided to lay the order now, rather than at an earlier date?

The report earlier this week from the Intelligence and Security Committee referred to difficulties expressed by the Metropolitan Police in prosecuting charges for membership of a proscribed organisation, and it appears that there have been very few such successful prosecutions. Why is this the case? Presumably, an order such as the one that we are discussing comes about because there is hard evidence of the terrorist-related activities and aims of these organisations, and evidence that there are people who are active in these organisations. Why is it, then, that once an organisation has been proscribed, the evidence that must surely have been accumulated to justify the proscription order in the first place is not then used as the basis for making the case to prosecute successfully at least some of those presumably involved in those organisations? It would be helpful if the Minister could say why successful prosecutions appear to be the case very infrequently. Can he also provide, now or subsequently, information on the number of people who have been, first, prosecuted and, secondly, successfully prosecuted under each of the 15 orders that have previously been laid under the terms of the Terrorism Act 2000 for supporting, belonging to, inviting support for or arranging a meeting to support a proscribed organisation? The point of these questions is simply to try to establish exactly what, and how much, these orders are achieving in reality.

There is also provision under the Terrorism Act 2000 for the Secretary of State to remove an organisation from the list of proscribed organisations. How often has this happened, and in respect of which organisations? If no one has been prosecuted for membership of a particular proscribed organisation, either at all or within the past few years, would that be regarded by the Government as a reason for considering the removal of that organisation from the list? Are the Government satisfied that the organisations already proscribed still represent a terrorist threat to this country, and do the Government regularly review the situation to satisfy themselves that the case still remains for organisations already there to continue to be on the proscribed list?

Do the three organisations that we are discussing today use social media to promulgate their unacceptable aims and objectives? If so, has action already been taken, or is it going to be taken, to seek to ensure that this no longer continues to be the case? In indicating again that we support the order, I nevertheless hope that the Minister will be able to throw some light on the issues that I and my noble friend Lord Triesman have raised.