| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
My key concern is the fact that so many organisations, not only those listed by the hon. Member for Newark, have not been brought within the realms of proscription. I particularly want to raise the question of Hezbollah. The military wing of Hezbollah is proscribed, but the political wing is not. Hezbollah itself does not make any distinction between those two entities and operates as one single organisation.
Dr. Vis: Two members of Hezbollah are in the Government. It is a little difficult to proscribe part of the Government of that country.
Mr. Dismore: I presume that my hon. Friend means Lebanon, which I have not mentioned, as I do not think that we have any members of Hezbollah in the UK Government. The fact remains that we are talking about the proscription of organisations in the UK. I am extremely concerned that Hezbollah has not been banned in its so-called political form as it has in the United States, Canada, Australia and Holland.
Similarly, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades have not been banned either, although they appear on the US list of foreign terrorist organisations. The anti-Semitic, anti-British way of life organisation, Hizb ut-Tahrir, is clearly a matter of great concern to many Members. The arguments in favour of banning Hizb ut-Tahrir have already been advanced at great length. I agree. I cannot understand why an organisation that is banned in so many countries around the world, and which proclaims a message of anti-Semitism and of trying to destroy our society, should not also be proscribed.
I very much welcome the announcement by my hon. Friend the Minister—my only concern is that it does not go far enough. There are still loopholes that people who undermine our society and rule of law are more than willing to exploit in order to achieve that objective. We need ever greater tightening of these measures and further organisations put within the parameters of the proscription list.
2.3 pm
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): I thank the Minister for the way in which he introduced the orders and for his offer of consultation prior to the debate, which I found extremely helpful.
I take the basic message from the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), which is that attacking these organisations in an organised way is like battling a hydra, because there is no way of satisfactorily keeping pace with the splinter organisations that will inevitably develop. It may seem a rather thankless task.
The first order concerns a matter of process. When we debated the last set of orders, of which there were a great number, the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) said that each organisation should be given separate consideration. One of the procedural difficulties that the House sometimes has, if not today, is that we do not have the opportunity to consider organisations separately because we can only accept or reject the entire list that is put before us.
Dr. Vis: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that very few Members had any idea of the basic information about more than three or four organisations out of the 21, yet we had only one vote?
Mr. Heath: I made that point at the time, and it does concern me. In debating such matters, we have to rely a great deal on trust, which is often well placed in Ministers and the advice that they receive from the security services. Nevertheless, we have to decide as a House whether to agree to the orders, and we should do so on the basis of the maximum information available.
I want to put one minor point to the Minister. The separate negative order that has been laid could have been included with the affirmative order to give the entire House the opportunity of agreeing to it. That would have meant that some of the exchanges in which the Minister has engaged with hon. Members would have been in order rather than almost out of order, as they must have been.
When we debate
such matters, we often lack the evidence that the Minister has in his
possession. That is inevitable. The House cannot know about all the
advice
that has been received because some of it will be from our security
services and police and from foreign sources, and it would not be
appropriate to divulge all that information in the public domain.
However, we are entitled to know about the levels of activity of such
organisations in the United Kingdom so that we can make a judgment
about the danger to British citizens and British interests
elsewhere.
We should be told whether any of the orders have been placed at the request of another Government. I fear that the Government are in danger of putting themselves in a difficult diplomatic position whereby they accede to requests for proscription from some countries but not from others. It becomes ever more difficult not to accede to such a request, even if there is a suspicion that it is less well founded, and that puts diplomatic pressure on the Government. It should be made clear to the House where there has been a request from an overseas Government and the extent to which that has been supported by British intelligence-gathering organisations in the field that can corroborate the view of that Government.
Mr. Weir: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, particularly in relation to Kurdish organisations. There has been oppression of Kurdish people by Turkey, Syria and Iraq over many years, and the Governments of those countries perhaps have a very different view of the operations of organisations that we would consider democratic but they may not.
Mr. Heath: 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.
Dr. Evan Harris: I agree with my hon. Friend. Arguably, section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2006 could also be used. He is not alone in expressing concern about proscription. The Joint Committee on Human Rights also argued in paragraph 63 of its third report that extending the ground for proscription to cover organisations that glorify acts of terrorism was unlikely to be compatible with the right to freedom of expression in article 10 and the right to freedom of association in article 11 of the European convention on human rights. There is a concern that those powers may, at some point, be struck down and we therefore need to ensure that we use them in the right way.
Mr. Heath: Under the terms of the order, which does not specify a section, I doubt whether a court would put such a narrow construction on the Minister’s words, but we are right to express concern.
Is the Minister confident that the internet sites, which seem to be his principal concern, will be closed down as a consequence of proscription or will they simply move to an overseas base and continue as before? If proscription does not achieve the primary objective of closing down those sites, it has failed as a mechanism.
It is a matter of natural justice that proscribed organisations should be regularly reviewed toascertain whether the proscription remains necessary and in order. The hon. Member for Glasgow, East (Mr. Marshall) mentioned the People’s Mujaheddin of Iran. There have been concerns about whether it should be proscribed. I make no comment on that apart from saying that I hope that it is subject to review. I especially hope that new assessments are made at the time of negative resolution orders for successor organisations. Rather than simply assessing whether an organisation is a successor body, we should assess whether it has the same principles and adherents as the previous organisation.
Mr.
McNulty: Not least for the benefit of others who may go
down that route, let me say that the PMOI currently has an application
for de-proscription before the Home Secretary. However much people wax
lyrical about it, I shall not comment on it. It would not be
appropriate to do that. If people want answers from me
about that specific organisation, they will not get any because the
de-proscription request is before the Home
Secretary.
Mr. Heath: The Minister is right to take that view. I am not acting as an advocate for the organisation, I am simply asking for the matter to be considered.
Hizb ut-Tahrir clearly holds views that many of us find abhorrent. I am especially worried about the anti-Semitism that the organisation expounds, which should be subject to legal sanction. However, whether it is a matter for proscription is a different question. The organisation is avowedly against the violent expression of its views. I am not in possession of intelligence material that would tell me whether that is true, but I know that it states that it is against violent and terrorist activities. We must be careful not to assume, simply because we do not like—and may abhor—an organisation, that we, as a state, should stop it being able to undertake its functions in this country. We should always, when possible, use the normal criminal law to ensure that people are charged with proper offences in court and that, if they are found guilty, they pay the appropriate penalty.
2.16 pm
Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) (Lab): I refer to the explanatory memorandums that were before the House in 2001. Those documents were fuller and amplified the Government’s case—— especially on the organisations to be proscribed and their activities in the United Kingdom——more than the current explanatory memorandum, which contains nothing to the same effect. I regret that. I do not want to belabour the point, as we fully realise that there are constraints on the Home Secretary. However, the memorandum could have been fuller and in line with what has been before the House previously. The Home Secretary asks hon. Members to trust his judgment, and I do, but that underlines the point that the Government need to review regularly the organisations that they have proscribed.
The Minister said in his opening remarks, and reminded us a few moments ago, that people can apply to be de-proscribed, but he himself cannot escape his duty to keep proscribed organisations under constant review. He did not refer to that and I regret it. If I could have his attention for a moment, it would make my journey to Westminster today worth while. I listened carefully to his comments, all of which were valid, but the Home Secretary has a duty to keep matters under review, especially given that the organisation to which the hon. Members for Newark (Patrick Mercer) and for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) referred—the PMOI, also known as Mujaheddin-e-Khalq—was proscribed in 2001. The British Government have acknowledged that the organisation has not been involved in any military or terrorist activity since then. In 2001, they acknowledged that it was not involved in any such activities in the United Kingdom. There must be carrot and stick. If an organisation fulfils the criterion of being a lawful organisation in the United Kingdom, Her Majesty’s Government should make some response.
The Minister was right to say
that he could not comment on the PMOI’s application, which is
before
the Home Secretary, because the Home Secretary and the Minister will act
in a quasi-judicial way. However, that does not stop me making points
to underlinethe importance of considering such matters. As a
backdrop, the Prime Minister referred to the Iranian Government this
week from the Dispatch Box as the exporters of terrorism. Their
opponents are trying to stand up to them, just as General de Gaulle
kept the flame flickering while in exile.
The Minister for the Middle East is chuntering under his breath, but I hope that he will do me the courtesy of listening to me for one more minute. Even if he thinks that Andrew Mackinlay is talking rubbish, the case that I am advancing has been articulated much better by people such as Lord Archer of Sandwell, a former Labour Solicitor-General; David Waddington, a former Conservative Home Secretary; Lord Fraser, a former Conservative Lord Advocate; and Lord Carlile of Berriew, the person who has been charged by the Government with making an objective assessment of these proscriptions. In Lord Carlile’s most recent report, he flagged up the fact that the Government should reflect again on the PMOI, or the MeK, as it is also known.
I wish that the Ministers would recognise that some of us do trust them, but that we expect a quid pro quo. We, the custodians of liberties, need to be satisfied that they are reviewing past decisions that were dictated by a request from the Iranian Government to the then Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, which was then conveyed to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), to proscribe the PMOI. Some of us think that that decision was flawed, and we want reassurance that there will now be some objectivity, and that the organisation will not continue to be proscribed merely to appease the rotten regime in Tehran.
2.21 pm
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con): I congratulate the Minister and the Government on proscribing al-Ghurabaa and the Saved Sect. Those organisations are the successors to al-Muhajiroun, whose founder, Omar Bakri Mohammad, was involved in the commission and preparation of terrorist acts and recruitment for jihad. He trained young men, whom he sent to fight in Chechnya, Afghanistan and Jordan. He was also directly responsible for the recruitment and training of two young Britons, Asif Mohammad Hanif and Omar Khan Sharif, whom he sent to their deaths in a suicide mission in Israel. His ideology is foul, and his organisation deserves to be proscribed. Its successor organisations also deserve to be proscribed, and I congratulate the Government on doing so.
I regret, however, that Hizb ut-Tahrir is not on the list of organisations being proscribed today. Lastyear, the Prime Minister outlined the case for the proscription of Hizb ut-Tahrir, and, as so often happens when the Prime Minister talks about Islamist terrorism, I found myself wholeheartedly agreeing with him. Why have the Government not proscribed Hizb ut-Tahrir? Did the Foreign Office and the Home Office fall out over this matter, as has been reported in the New Statesman? Will the Minister specify the nature of the discussions between those Departments on this matter, and let us know why that proscription has not proceeded?
Given that Hizb ut-Tahrir has been proscribed in Germany by Otto Schily, the interior Minister in an SPD-Green Administration, the proscription of the organisation would hardly be a reactionary move. Indeed, the desire for its proscription is endorsed by all those who believe that liberal, multi-ethnic democracies need to be protected from extremists who fly under flags of convenience.
I suspect that I might be rare in the House—although I note that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Galloway) is here—in that I have had the privilege, if that is the word, of being invited to address a Hizb ut-Tahrir meeting in the past. I did not know that Hizb ut-Tahrir had organised the meeting when I was invited to address it. Because I did not know that, and because Hizb ut-Tahrir operates under a cloak of secrecy, I was rendered complicit in an exercise in radicalising young Muslim men. I saw how the organisation operated, and how it sought to divide young Muslim men from the rest of our fellow citizens. I recognise that it acts as a conveyor belt to extremist activity, as the Prime Minister has pointed out.
The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) pointed out that Hizb ut-Tahrir bore similarities to Trotskyist organisations, and so it does, in that it operates under a number of identities in order to achieve its totalitarian aims. However, it is far more dangerous than Trotskyist organisations ever were in this country.
The Prime Minister made a speech to the Foreign Policy Centre earlier this year, in which he said:
“The extremism”—
“may have started through religious doctrine and thought, but soon, in offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood, supported by Wahabi extremists and taught in some of the madrassahs in the middle east and Asia, an ideology was born and exported around the world.”
For those who do not know the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, I shall spell it out briefly. Its ideology is Allah—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing the groups that are named in the order, rather than any that are not? I have allowed the hon. Gentleman some discussion on these matters, but I must now call him to order.
Michael Gove: Thank you for bringing me back to the matter under discussion, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Why is the Muslim Brotherhood—a proscribed organisation in other countries, as the hon. Member for Hendon pointed out—not being adequately dealt with here? I am sure that the House is aware that there is an individual in the Foreign Office, Mockbul Ali, the Islamic issues adviser, who has described the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-e-Islami as progressive organisations. Why is the Prime Minister’s stated desire to deal with the extremism promulgated by the Muslim Brotherhood not being dealt with effectively by the Government?
Mr. George Galloway (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Respect): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did not rise to the hon. Gentleman’s wholly gratuitous—and, as it happens, erroneous—reference to me. I have never attended a meeting of Hizb ut-Tahrir. However, is it in order for an hon. Member to name an individual civil servant in the Foreign Office in that disparaging way, when that civil servant is not here to answer for themselves?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I have not heard anything that is out of order. Members who make speeches must take responsibility for what they say in the Chamber. I would remind hon. Members, however, that we are discussing the list of organisations that are named in the motion.
Michael Gove: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Will the Minister ensure that, when these provisions are reviewed in future, all the organisations that seek to take young men and turn them into terrorists are kept properly under review? Will he also ensure that any organisations that act as generators of extremism and recruiters for jihad are given the degree of scrutiny that the Prime Minister said that they would be given when he spoke last July, and at the Foreign Policy Centre in February?
2.26 pm
Mr. Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP): It is clear that terrorist organisations continually split up and change their names, and it is therefore difficult to keep track of them. We appreciate that, and we support the proposal to proscribe these organisations today. There is clear evidence that at least two of them are condemned out of their own mouths.
I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) about keeping the situation under review. History shows that terrorist organisations sometimes split because some of their members move towards democracy. I appreciate the adherence to the precautionary principle, but the Minister should bear in mind the fact that there might be opportunities for some of these organisations to adopt peaceful means, and they should not be thrown away.
The Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru are slightly concerned about the situation regarding Kurdish groups. Teyrebaz Azadiye Kurdistan—TAK—is being proscribed today, and we have no objection to that, as it stands condemned out of its own mouth. The successor groups to the PKK are also being proscribed, under the negative resolution procedure. However, the Kurdish peoples in Turkey, Syria and Iraq have a long history of fighting against non-democratic regimes for their democratic rights. There is now an autonomous Kurdish region in Iraq, but the situation in Turkey is still very bad. The Turkish Government have taken action against democratic Kurdish groups, and Kurdish MPs have been imprisoned for using the Kurdish language.
Will the Minister ensure that,
when requests are made for the proscription of groups by foreign
Governments—especially Governments such as the Turkish
Government, who are not entirely
democratic—there is full investigation, so that we can be
satisfied that they are groups that we would recognise as terrorist
groups, and not simply groups that are unacceptable to the Government
of the country in which they operate? There is a long history of
oppression of the Kurdish people. We do not object to the proscription
of the TAK, but we must ensure that we do not go too far, particularly
in relation to Kurdish organisations.
2.28 pm
Mr. McNulty: I shall deal with the points raised in this very reasonable debate that were specifically about the order, rather than the assorted attempts—however well intentioned—to reopen the wonderful long debates that we had just before the election, which involved sittings lasting until 6 or 7 o’clock in the morning and losing a day’s business in the House. Wonderful memories! Nor am I going to go down the memory lane depicted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) when he talked about Trotskyist groups. I shall say no more about that, but anyone who wants to talk about Trotskyist groups in the 1970s—with or without my own inclusion—should see me afterwards.
In relation to some of the specific points about process, I take the point about the first order that listed some 21 organisations. There was some urgency, once we secured the power to proscribe, to get that initial series of organisations on the statute books asquickly as possible. On reflection, merely an hourand a half—locked as we were into our limited parliamentary procedures—on an order that proscribed 21 organisations was probably not the best way to conduct business. I will take that point back to the Home Office for consideration.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is not it a serious discourtesy to the House that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) should ask a series of questions of the Minister and then not be present to hear any answers?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Certainly, it is the convention of the House that Members stay and be present for both the opening and closing remarks.
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con): Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) is taking a statutory instrument for the Opposition at 2.30.
Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair, and the debate can continue.
Mr. Heath: I was about to intervene on the Minister to thank him for what he said, and to suggest that we need not to extend the parliamentary time available but to take a series of separate orders in a single debate. That would be the appropriate way of doing it, which he might like to consider.
Mr.
McNulty: I take that point, too. I cannot, however, tag an
order subject to the negative procedure
to one subject to the affirmative procedure. That simply cannot happen
in our parliamentary procedures. The negative procedure deliberately
addresses the issues raised by a number of hon. Members in relation to
splinter groups and successor bodies, where a direct link can be made
to the original parent body—for want of another
phrase—rather than having the affirmative procedure every time
there is another clear manifestation of the same group.
The hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) asked what happens now and how we will take matters forward. As with other proscription orders, we will work with the police to ensure that all options are considered, including the use of non-proscription offences such as the dissemination of terrorist publications. With the Treasury, we are exploring, as we always do, all the options in terms of asset freezing and forfeiture. Incidentally, we do not believe that the two domestic groups, of themselves, have a whole lot of assets to go after. With the high-tech crime unit, we are exploring what we can do with internet service providers, certainly where groups are domestically based, about the continuing provision of what is now a website for an illegal organisation. Under law, I think that I am right that the ISP becomes directly involved if it persists in providing such a service for an illegal organisation. Clearly, that is more difficult in relation to a foreign-based website.
In terms of the broader points, which were entirely fairly raised, about keeping matters under review, there are two processes. There is the process by which the organisation can apply directly to the Home Secretary and subsequently to the appeals commission, to be de-proscribed. There is also a proscription working group bringing together No. 10, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the police agencies, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Home Office, which continually reviews all the organisations on the list, which are entirely moveable feasts.
With the greatest respect to the House, the one thing that I cannot do is treat proscription like some sort of Dutch auction, whereby we present a list to the House of those organisations about which we feel that we have sufficient evidence to go down the proscription route, and then indulge in discussions about a range of other organisations. The House has generously invited me to talk about why Hizb ut-Tahrir or any number of organisations are not on the list. As I said at the outset, this is not the definitive list for this year. The Government still have very serious concerns about Hizb ut-Tahrir. We also have concerns about a range of other organisations, some of which have been mentioned by individual Members. On the evidential base that we have, I am simply putting to the House the four organisations listed on the order for proscription. I have not come here to discuss the next potential series of proscribed organisations, not least because of court proceedings that may follow should such organisations be proscribed in due course.
Mr.
Hancock: The Minister was extraordinarily grateful in
taking interventions—[Hon. Members:
“Generous.”]. The Minister was generous. Can he explain
how the head of the security services in this country, the Prime
Minister, was able to say over a year ago that there was clear evidence
for one particular
organisation to be proscribed, and yet one year on we still have not
proscribed it? If the Prime Minister had the evidence, surely the
Minister had the evidence, and it should be before us this
afternoon.
Mr. McNulty: I think that the hon. Gentleman made a Freudian slip initially—I am certainly not grateful for that intervention. I have just said that these are very serious matters, and proscription of organisations is very serious. I have not come here to speculate about whether any proscription order will come. On 5 August last year, the Prime Minister clearly mentioned three such organisations. I have come to the House with an order proscribing two of those. I have made it clear that the Government still have serious concerns about Hizb ut-Tahrir, but that is not to speculate about whether a proscription is forthcoming. Given the nature of the measures, which are not taken lightly, I implore the House to concentrate on those that the Government feel confident enough to bring forward, rather than to dwell on—with no pun intended—the ifs and buts of other organisations that may be under review and may form the basis of subsequent proscription orders.
Given the broadly generous way in which the House has received the proscription of those four organisations, I will quit while I am ahead, and commend the order to the House.
That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 17th July, be approved.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |