| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
BILL PRESENTED
Secretary John Reid, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Darling, Mr. Secretary Hutton, Hazel Blears and Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe, presented a Bill to create a new offence that, in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, is to be called corporate manslaughter and, in Scotland, is to be called corporate homicide; and to make provision in connection with that offence: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 24 July, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 220].
Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism
1.27 pm
The Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety (Mr. Tony McNulty): I beg to move,
That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 17th July, be approved.
Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides a power for the Home Secretary to proscribe an organisation that he believes is concerned in terrorism by adding the organisation to schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act, which lists proscribed organisations. An organisation is concerned in terrorism if it commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism or is otherwise concerned in terrorism.
That power was extended by section 21 of the Terrorism Act 2006 to include organisations that glorify the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism. Glorification includes any form of praise or celebration of acts of terrorism. We are therefore now able to take action against those who make statements that most right-minded people find abhorrent and who create a climate that supports and fuels terrorism.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): Will my hon. Friend explain why we have not got on today’s list the organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir, whose activities are proscribed in Germany and many other countries and are of deep concern to many people in this country?
Mr. McNulty: I take my hon. Friend’s point. This is not a definitive list in terms of proscription. There are any number of other organisations, among which I would include Hizb ut-Tahrir, that we keep under constant review and are seriously concerned about. I do not come here with “This year’s list of proscribed organisations”. This is an ongoing process and we keep all those organisations under review.
Mr. David Marshall (Glasgow, East) (Lab): The order adds names to the list. Will the Minister explain what an organisation, once on the list, can do to be removed from it, and will he reconsider whether the People’s Mujahedin of Iran should be removed from the list now?
Mr. McNulty: Again, I take my hon. Friend’s point. I shall not reconsider organisations that are already on the list, but if he will bear with me I shall come on to precisely the point of how an organisation can try to get itself removed from the list.
Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): Will the Minister give the House an indication of how many other organisations are under intensive review, withthe possibility of being banned? Is there a danger that the Minister will need to ban other organisations over the long parliamentary recess?
Mr.
McNulty: I do not think that there is any intention of
introducing proscription orders over the recess. In the confines of the
assorted Terrorism Acts, an order subject to the affirmative procedure
has to come before the House, so there will not be any
proscription over the recess, unless the second element of the
legislation is used. That element allows orders subject to the negative
procedure to be laid regarding organisations that are clearly successor
groups to an organisation that has previously been proscribed. I can
thus give the right hon. Gentleman a broad
assurance.
The House will know that the order before us lists four organisations that we believe are concernedin terrorism: al-Ghurabaa, the Saved Sect, the Baluchistan Liberation Army and Teyrebaz Azadiye Kurdistan, which, if I may, I will call TAK from now on. Al-Ghurabaa and the Saved Sect are being proscribed under the new glorification provisions, and this is the first time that those powers have been used. The Baluchistan Liberation Army and TAK are directly involved in acts of terrorism.
When deciding whether to make an order proscribing a group, several additional factors are taken into account. They were published in 2001. The factors are the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities, the specific threat that it poses to the United Kingdom, the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas, the organisation’s presence in the United Kingdom, and the need to support other members of the international community in their fight against terrorism.
The proscription of an organisation is a very serious matter, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, East (Mr. Marshall) suggested. It means that the organisation is outlawed in the UK and that it is illegal for it to operate here. The Terrorism Act makes it a criminal offence to belong to, or invite support for, a proscribed organisation. It is also an offence to arrange a meeting that will support or further the activities of a proscribed organisation, or that will be addressed by someone who belongs to such an organisation. Finally, a person commits an offence if he or she wears clothing, or carries or displays articles, that provide a reasonable suspicion that he or she is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation.
I now come on to my hon. Friend’s point. It is important to note that any organisation that is proscribed, or anyone who is affected by a proscription, can appeal directly to the Home Secretary for the organisation to be de-proscribed. If that is refused, the applicant can appeal to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission. There is thus a twofold process whereby organisations on the list can be de-proscribed.
Given the wide-ranging impact of proscription, the Home Secretary takes the decision to propose a group for proscription only after a thorough review of all relevant material. That includes open-source and intelligence material, as well as advice that reflects consultations across Government and with law enforcement agencies.
I believe that proscribing the four groups in the order will send a clear message that the United Kingdom continues to take its role in fighting terrorism seriously. We all know that the nature of terrorism has changed. The structures used are more fluid and international, and there are organisations that recruit and radicalise, as well as those that actually commit terrible acts of violence against innocent civilians. Each day we see more and more examples of the enormous challenge that we face.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): Over the period in which the legislation has been in force, is there evidence that any of the groups that were proscribed in the past reconstituted themselves ostensibly as new groups and thus had to be proscribed again?
Mr. McNulty: There is, so I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s comment. He will know that an order subject to the negative procedure is before the House today. The PKK is a proscribed Kurdistan group. We believe that we have sufficient information that suggests that the two groups that are the subject of that order—KADEK and Kongra Gele Kurdistan—are simply successor groups to the PKK, which is why they can be proscribed simply by such an order under section 22 of the Terrorism Act 2006, unless the order is prayed against during the 21 days, or whatever it is, for which it is laid. We rightly included that provision in the Act because we had evidence of such activity.
It is against the broad background that I outlined that we must consider all steps that we can take to protect our citizens from terrorism. That involves difficult decisions and judgments, but the overriding responsibility must be to protect the public. Partof that is about making it harder for organisationsthat are involved in terrorism—both directly and indirectly—to operate, and that is simply what proscription does.
Al-Ghurabaa and the Saved Sect use the internet as their main medium. The two organisations are closely connected and both are successor organisations to al-Muhajiroon. They use the internet to attack the values of our society and praise those who want to use violence for ideological aims. They spread a message that is aimed at the young and vulnerable, which indirectly encourages them to emulate previous terrorist acts.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) (Lab): I would have thought that most people, including those in the Muslim community, would say, “It’s about time.” However, what about the people behind these organisations: the racists and hate-mongers who are not UK citizens? Is there not a strong case for considering those people’s status in the United Kingdom and inevitably asking whether their presence in this country is really desirable?
Mr. McNulty: There certainly is; I agree with my hon. Friend. He will know that during the passage of the Bill that became the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, not least because of the events of last summer, we revisited precisely the issue to which he refers on a cross-party basis. Many of the powers that we have to get rid of the undesirables to whom he refers—those who are not UK citizens, but operate in this country—are at their strongest because of the provisions that were added to that Act, with broad agreement in the main part.
Mr. Mike Hancock (Portsmouth, South) (LD):Can the Minister give us details of any charges that have been brought against individuals who havebeen involved with organisations since they have been proscribed? Have any of those charges led to successful convictions?
Mr. McNulty: I cannot offhand, not least because the organisations that have been proscribed under the Terrorism Acts 2000 and 2006 have not been as such for terribly long. If I can get any substantive information, I suspect that it will be about charges that have been made because the process will be unfolding as we speak. That relates in part back to the earlier statement, given the length of time that it takes such things to go through the courts. If I am able to give the information to the hon. Gentleman and the House, I will of course be happy to do so.
Mr. Nigel Dodds (Belfast, North) (DUP): May I ask about the removal of organisations from the proscribed list? Apart from the point that was made about organisations that become defunct, will the Minister tell us whether the Government have given any consideration to the removal of other organisations, including domestically based ones in Northern Ireland, on the grounds that they might have changed in character? We are being told that organisations in Northern Ireland are fit for government, yet they remain proscribed as illegal organisations under the legislation.
Mr. McNulty: The narrow confines of the order relate only to the organisations that are being proscribed under the powers in the Terrorism Acts, rather than the broader context of domestically based organisations in Northern Ireland and other such concerns. The order relates simply to the proscription of organisations—although I have mentioned de-proscription—and no more.
Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon) (Lab): Perhaps I could help my hon. Friend with a previous intervention. In fact, Anjem Choudry, one of the leading lights of one of the organisations that are to be banned, was recently convicted of organising a demonstration.
Mr. McNulty: I will leave it to my hon. Friend to give the oxygen of publicity to those people and their previous, imminent or subsequent convictions. I choose not to mention names, which is why I am rather irate with my hon. Friend.
A spokesman for al-Ghurabaa explicitly refused to condemn the 7 July bombings:
“What I would say about those who do suicide operations or martyrdom operations is they’re completely praiseworthy. I have no allegiance to the Queen whatsoever or to British society; in fact if I see mujahideen attack the UK I am always standing with the Muslims, never against the Muslims.”
Dr. Rudi Vis (Finchley and Golders Green) (Lab): I recall that in 2001 we had one vote on the proscription of 21 organisations. If any of those organisations were to be de-proscribed in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, East (Mr. Marshall) suggested, would there have to be a review of all 21 proscribed organisations, because there was just one vote?
Mr. McNulty: No, there would not. No matter how many organisations are on the order, they are treated under law as separate and distinct organisations, sothe de-proscription would apply simply to the one organisation, rather than to the whole list.
As I was saying, there is material on the al-Ghurabaa website that says
‘kill those who insult Mohammed’
“we do believe in Jihad, we do believe in violence, we do believe in terrorizing the enemy of Allah”.
It talks about Osama bin Laden being a lion and says that his opponents are
“treading a downhill path of destruction and humiliation”.
“forced to kneel down towards him”.
The Saved Sect churns out similar propaganda. Let us be clear: those are examples not of freedom of speech, but of the abuse of those freedoms. They are insidious attacks on the broad values that the overwhelming majority of communities in this country hold dear.
The case of the Baluchistan Liberation Army and TAK is different, as those organisations are directly concerned with terrorism, and have claimed responsibility for some dreadful atrocities. For example, the Baluchistan Liberation Army has claimed responsibility for attacks going back to at least 2004, including the murder of Chinese engineers in February 2006 and nine bombings of railway stations in 2005. TAK has also claimed responsibility for attacks in Turkey since 2004, including a bomb attack on an internet café in Istanbul. Although those organisations are not based in the United Kingdom, they pose a threat to our citizens, as was demonstrated by the tragic death of British citizens in a bomb attack by TAK in the Turkish resort of Kusadasi in 2005.
Mr. Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP): I have no dispute with the Minister about the proscription of TAK, but he has announced the proscription of three Kurdish organisations. There is a long history in Kurdistan, particularly its Turkish part, of the oppression of Kurdish people. Will the Minister give me an assurance that he will keep the situation under review, so that we do not end up proscribing organisations that are democratic? There can be no doubt about the nature of TAK, but many Kurdish organisations are accused of terrorism by the Turkish Government, and their members are imprisoned, when in fact they are democratic organisations fighting for the rights of the Kurdish people.
Mr. McNulty: I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but in the context of the order, there is clear evidence against TAK, and there is already substantive evidence against the PKK. The other two organisations that we propose to proscribe in an order under the negative procedure are simply successors to the PKK. If a body is not a terrorist organisation in terms, as defined in various Acts and in the judgment and review ofthe Government, it will not appear on a list for proscription.
Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon) (LD): Paragraph 7.1 of the explanatory memorandum explains that under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000, the Minister could proscribe an organisation that, among other things,
“promotes or encourages terrorism or is otherwise concerned with terrorism.”
It explains that section 21 of the Terrorism Act 2006 adds the glorification of terrorism to the reasons for proscription. I do not necessarily disagree with the Minister’s proposal, but is the section 21 power required to proscribe the Saved Sect and al-Ghurabaa, or does the Minister think that they could be proscribed under the powers in the 2000 Act, without need for that power?
Mr. McNulty: I assume that the hon. Gentleman was here at the start of my speech. I said very clearly that the organisations are being proscribed under the glorification offence in section 21 of the Terrorism Act 2006, which deals with those organisations that glorify
“the commission or preparation...of acts of terrorism”.
“any form of praise or celebration”
of acts of terrorism. This is the first time that the offence has been used, and I made that clear at the start of my deliberations.
Dr. Evan Harris: When the Minister cited that provision he did not read from the website of al-Ghurabaa, so it was not clear to those of us who had not seen that website what language fell specifically under the category of “glorification”, rather than under “promotes and encourages”. I am not seeking to argue with him; I am just seeking to establish whether, in his view, what he read out from that website did not promote or encourage terrorism, but glorified it.
Mr. McNulty: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is trying to say, but I shall not, with the indulgence of the House or otherwise, read the whole speech again. I would quite like to—I could do it a bit differently this time—but I do not think that I will. The offence is under section 21, and that is the substance of the issue. Given the material that is available, as I have said, it is quite right that we should proscribe the organisations listed in the order, and I commend the order to the House.
1.45 pm
Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con): I thank the Minister for his statement and for giving us the facility to discuss the order before we came to the House today.
The measure is apposite, bearing in mind that this Thursday exactly a year ago we were in the middle of another wave of terrorist attacks that, had they been successful, would, I suspect, have focused our minds much more closely even than the attacks of 7 July. On the next day—22 July—those attacks were followed by a series of tragic events that are close to the Government’s thoughts at the moment. We would do well to remember that many of the organisations that we are talking about today were heavily involved in the events of last year.
May I begin by
saying that the Opposition are delighted with the four names on the
order to which the Minister has referred? We certainly support the
Government’s proscription of those organisations, but I should
be grateful if the Minister would kindly answer one or two questions. I
shall first deal with the first two organisations that have been
proscribed today. Both al-Ghurabaa and the Saved Sect—also
known
as the Saviour Sect—have been proscribed, but theyare
remnants of al-Muhajiroun. What are the Government’s views about
other remnants of that organisation, such as the followers of Ahl
Us-Sunnah Wal-Jammaa’ah, the Muballigh, the Islamic Thinkers
Society and the Society of Muslim Lawyers, which is not the same as the
Association of Muslim Lawyers?
Omar Bakri Muhammad, who established al-Muhajiroun, said:
“Al-Muhajiroun has many organs which are active within society under its leadership. These organs specialize in different fields, such as: the Society of Muslim Lawyers, the Society of Converts to Islam, the Society of Muslim Parents, the London School of Shari’ah, the Shari’ah Court of the UK, the Society of Muslim Students, the Islamic World League, the Muslim Cultural Society and the Party of the Future.”
How will the Government cope with that? As soon as organisations are banned, they change their name. The same happened with the IRA—first, there was the Official IRA, then the provisionals, then a series of other splinter organisations. How will we cope with that? Can the Minister help me on that point? As soon as one organisation is banned, it springs up under another name. That is not a criticism; I am merely asking for information about how that can be controlled.
Mr. Redwood: How many organisations that are as bad as the ones that we are proscribing today should be proscribed?
Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The answer is that there are any number. As soon as I name one of those organisations, it will rename itself. As soon as it is proscribed, it will spring up under another guise. As I said, that is not a criticism of the Government; it is a merely question about how they intend to deal with it.
Hezbollah is much in the news at present. Will the Government explain why the external security organisation of Hezbollah is proscribed, whereas Hezbollah’s political arm and its guerrilla forces in south Lebanon are not proscribed? I shall quote from the Minister for the Middle East, although his words make the situation no clearer. He stated in March 2006:
“We are not aware of any involvement by Hizballah in terrorist activity in southern Lebanon. However, we remain very concerned by Hizballah’s support for terrorist activity withinthe Occupied Territories.”—[ Official Report, 22 March 2006; Vol. 444, c. 422W.]
Can the Minister please explain why we deal with one half of the organisation in one way, and the other half in another way?
Why is Abu
Hamza’s old group, the Supporters of Sharia, not proscribed?
What is the Government’s view on them? From their chat rooms, it
is clear that they are a thinly disguised front for al-Qaeda in the
United Kingdom. What are the Government’s views on Tablighi
Jama’at? That organisation has plans to build a £100
million mosque in east London that will apparently accommodate 10,000
worshippers. French intelligence is deeply worried by that
organisation, claiming that 80 per cent. of Islamist fundamentalists in
France come from TJ and calling it the “antechamber of
fundamentalism”. How will we cope with that? Do the Government
propose to allow the group’s recruiting methods to continue? Are
we to give
succour to it? Again, I simply require information from the Government.
What about the Student Islamic Movement of India inside the United
Kingdom? We have already touched on that. What are the
Government’s views on the comments of Lord Carlile about the
de-proscription of
Mujaheddin-e-Khalq?
I return to the point that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made about Hizb ut-Tahrir, or HUT for short. A few days ago the Home Secretary told us how pleased and delighted he was with the way that Project CONTEST was developing. That is the Government’s anti-terrorist strategy, which revolves around four streams of thought—four streams of action. Will the Government explain how HUT fits into both the “protect” and the “prepare” streams of thought of project CONTEST? I remind the House that the Prime Minister’s delivery unit said of Project CONTEST that activity in the project was not connected or coherent, it asked who was in charge, and it said that Project CONTEST measures meeting and reports, not real world impact. The Home Secretary denied all that.
HUT is banned from many Arab countries, the former Soviet Union and Germany, yet London appears to be its headquarters. Its UK branch was founded by Omar Bakri Muhammad, who founded al-Muhajiroun, and it talks endlessly about anti-Muslim integration. On 5 August 2005, the Prime Minister said that HUT would be proscribed. Why has it not been? If we have Project CONTEST, a strategy for counter-terrorism, which the Home Secretary tells us is in good shape—although the Prime Minister’s delivery unit says it is not fit for purpose—can the Minister please explain to me why the Prime Minister’s words have not been honoured?
Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): I share the hon. Gentleman’s views about HUT, particularly about its statements, which it made openly, that Muslims should be tried according to sharia in this country. We have the rule of law in the United Kingdom, which everyone must obey. The attitude of HUT may not be a reason for proscribing it, but it is certainly a reason for strong argument with the group. If it does not obey the rule of law in the UK, it is outwith a democratic society. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I entirely agree. I cannot understand why an organisation that espouses the views to which the hon. Gentleman has just drawn attention is not proscribed. More to the point, I agree with what the Prime Minister said on 5 August 2005. Why has HUT not been proscribed? If we are preventing terror, protecting our population, preparing for attacks and pursuing terrorists under Project CONTEST, why has that not been done?
Mr. Hancock: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the points that he is making are the issues that cause so much confusion and concern within the Muslim population in this country about the way in which some organisations are treated, whereas others are ignored for other reasons, although they know not why?
Patrick Mercer: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We had such discussions when we were serving together on the Defence Committee. There is nothing worse than inconsistency in a campaign such as the present one. Inconsistency will always be misinterpreted, perverted and turned against us. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.
Dr. Vis: Organisations are sometimes not proscribed because it is easier for the police to keep an eye on them that way than otherwise.
Patrick Mercer: The hon. Gentleman is right, of course. Many of the questions that I have asked today may well be covered by the Minister in an explanation making that precise point. Certainly, I am criticising, but many of the other points that I am making are points of information that the whole House, as evidenced by the interventions, would be interested to know.
Lastly, if we proscribe organisations, it is all very well talking and generating hot air, but what is done about asset seizure? There must be delivery, not just talk. There is no point in Government anti-terrorism strategies that are torn apart by the Government’s own audit organisations. I welcome what the Government have done today. I ask the Minister for some thoughtful—as I know they will be—and trenchant replies to the questions that the Opposition have asked.
1.57 pm
Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon) (Lab): I, too, welcome the statement by my hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety. As he knows, I have been pursuing the fundamentalist extremists since 1998. That was when I first asked questions about Bakri Muhammad and al-Muhajiroun in the House. We should remember that Bakri Muhammad set up al-Muhajiroun because he has fallen out with the Muslim Brotherhood, which he came to the United Kingdom to set up—an extreme organisation banned in many countries around the world.
I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) about the problems of the splinter groups that are continually set up. It is a little like the Trotskyists in the 1970s. Whenever one looked at them, they were a different organisation. The present case is rather more sinister and rather more dangerous than the Trotskyists ever were. They may have purported to undermine society as we knew it, but they never got very far.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I cannot resist a brief trip down memory lane. Although it is true that Trotskyists and other far left groups and, indeed, pro-Soviet groups used to rename themselves, it was nevertheless also true that when the hon. Gentleman’s party fatally abolished the proscribed list, that had a huge effect on reviving the overt way in which those groups were able to function. That is why, despite the danger of reinvention, proscription is worth while.
Mr.
Dismore: We are getting a little off the point. The
serious issue is how we keep up with the continual name changes of
organisations that are effectively the
same organisations as those that were proscribed. If they have the same
website, address or telephone number, that is relatively easy to
follow. If the same people are involved, it becomes more difficult
because many of them have aliases and noms de guerre. When we look them
up on the internet, we find a series of different names for the same
people. Moreover, they are not organisations like political parties
with membership lists, membership cards and so forth, but loose
associations, which makes it that much harder.
The explanatory memorandum, which gives the reasons why Al-Ghurabaa and the Saved Sect should be proscribed, uses somewhat measured and temperate language that understates the nature of the organisations with which we are dealing. One of Al-Ghurabaa’s key activists, Anjem Choudary, was the prime mover behind the demonstration outside the Danish embassy and was recently convicted of not giving proper notice to the police. I regret to say that he received a mere slap on the wrist, which no doubt encourages rather than discourages people in those circumstances. Several trials for more serious offences are still outstanding in relation to that demonstration. The rabid anti-Semitism of those groups is notorious. One need only look at some of the statements made on the demonstration, such as, “Butcher those who mock Islam”, or “Kill those who insult Islam”, and the people dressed as suicide bombers, to apprehend the nature of Al-Ghurabaa.
The Saved Sect is probably the most direct line back to Al-Muhajiroun. It was formerly known as the Saviour Sect, but changed its name. That is why I mentioned name changes. Sometimes the new name is dissimilar, but it is often very similar. People associated with the Saved Sect included Mizanur Rahman, who demanded the beheading of those who insult Islam at the Danish embassy demonstration, and Islam Uddin, who called the Jewish people
“the most disgusting and greedy people on earth”.
Many others have made similar statements. I would like particularly to highlight Abu Yahya. When I first started this campaign back in 1998, I remember him speaking on the Radio 4 “Today” programme, proclaiming the jihadist message and boasting of the terrorist training that he had received in Afghanistan.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |