Speeches and Statements

Terrorism Bill - The Government's Approach

Speech by the Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, on the Terrorism Bill on 5 December 2005.

We have said all along that in a matter as important as this we want to proceed by consensus.

I pay tribute to the Rt Hon Member for Haltemprice and Howden and the Hon Member for Winchester and the Home Affairs Select Committee for the constructive tone which they have adopted over the summer.

History of the Bill

1. I made a commitment to bring forward further counter-terrorism legislation earlier this year during the passage of the Bill that became the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.
2. Preparations for the Bill were already well underway in early July of this year and I set out list of measures to the Opposition spokesmen on 15 July. I am grateful to them both for the positive response which they were able to give.
3. Also made it clear that we were consulting the police and intelligence agencies in the light of the attacks and would consider whether additional measures were required.
4. Sent out draft Bill to Opposition and Committee Chairs on 15 September.
5. In the light of the helpful comments which we received I set out on 6 October some revised proposals in respect of the offence of glorification.
6. On the same day, my Rt Hon Friend, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, published a paper setting out anti-terrorism laws in other countries, which I hope will inform the debate.

So we come to the issues facing this House today:

Basis is that there is a terrorist threat: New York, Nairobi, Sharm El Sheikh, Istanbul, Bali X2, Madrid and London

As we legislate, we:

• Clarify the values and society which we are defending;
• Identify the threat with which we have to deal;

The United Kingdom is a society which:

• Values free speech and freedom of expression, including a free media;
• Believes in a society which respects all faiths, races and beliefs;
• Believes in a society founded on the rule of law;
• Want every citizen to have a democratic stake in our society;
• Values the free economy which has built prosperity; including high quality public services on which we all depend;
• Values the fact that women can play a full role in our society.

We all know that our society, based on these values, will continue to evolve and develop.  We can all point to aspects of our societies which fall short of these aspirations, but many from throughout all sides of politics have struggled to achieve this.

The societies which we have built, with the values which they embody, are not slight or passing but are deeply-rooted and profound.

And those values are embraced by the overwhelming majority of our citizens, from whatever faith group or minority ethnic group they come. Indeed most of those who have migrated to our countries have migrated precisely because they want to embrace our values.

So our society is characterised by common values, but diverse backgrounds, faiths and life styles.  This has been a stunningly successful model of integration despite regular challenges

If you compare the united kingdom of the 1950s  - before significant migration took place - with the united kingdom of today.  In so many key fields of life and endeavour - design, literature, food - there are too may to name - the vibrancy of diversity has powered creativity and economic success.  But always within the framework of our common values.

Moreover we know that our type of democratic society has been the ambition which has driven enormous political and social change over the past 30 years.

In that 30 years:

• Fascist or militaristic Greece Spain and Portugal have been succeeded by democracy;
• Apartheid South Africa has been succeeded by democracy;
• Colonialist southern Africa has been replaced by democracy;
• Latin and Central American dictatorship has been replaced by democracy;
• The whole totalitarian central and Eastern Europe has been succeed by democracy;
• In south-east Asia democracy has replaced dictatorship.
• I perfectly well understand that in each of these parts of the world massive problems remain.
• But it is the case that these are absolutely enormous changes in one generation which prove that change for the good can happen, and moreover that it can happen in very many cases without violence or bloodshed.
• And the fight for democracy is at the core of this change.

What is the threat?

I believe that it is precisely because we have developed a highly successful model of integration which enables people of all backgrounds and faiths to prosper and live together within the safeguard of common values that our society has become an affront, and a reproach, to the ideologues who believe that only their way of living life is the right one.

And make no mistake, the threat we face is ideological.  It is not driven by poverty, or by social exclusion, or by racial hatred.

Those who attacked London in July and those who have been engaged in or committed the long list of previous terrorist atrocities were not the poor and dispossessed.  They were, for the most part, well educated and prosperous.  In the case of terrorists in the UK they have also been ethnically and nationally diverse.

What drives these people on is ideas.  And unlike the liberation movements of the post World War II era, these are not in pursuit of political ideas like national independence from colonial rule, or equality for all citizens without regard for race or creed, or freedom of expression without totalitarian repression. Such ambitions are, at least in principle, negotiable and in many cases have actually been negotiated.

However there can be no negotiation about the re-creation of the caliphate in this country; there can be no negotiation about the imposition of Sharia law; there can be no negotiation about the suppression of equality between the sexes; there can be no negotiation about the ending of free speech.  These values are fundamental to our civilisation and are simply not up for negotiation.

It  is equally wrong to claim, as some do,  that the motivation of AQ and their allies is driven by some desire to seek justice in the middle east - the part of the world where progress has been most difficult to achieve in the past 30 years.

I do not accept that in any respect.

AQ and its allies have no clear demands for the Middle East. In fact the only common thread in their approach is a violent and destructive opposition to democracy in any form.

• They find democracy in Palestine abhorrent and they seek to destroy it.
• They find democracy in Israel abhorrent and they seek to destroy it.
• They find democracy in Afghanistan abhorrent and they seek to destroy it.
• And now they find the democracy in Iraq which the United Nations is seeking to support and establish so abhorrent that they are doing  whatever they can to destroy it.
• And their methods too are different.  Because they recognise no common bonds with people who have different beliefs, they are prepared to kill indiscriminately.  Indeed mass murder is their explicit objective, their measure of success in their terms.
• And their methods of recruitment bear more comparison with self-destructive cults than political movements.
• But their modern nihilism is innovative, flexible and cunning nihilism.  Because AQ and the networks inspired by them approach their task with all the resources of modern technology and all the focus of modern zealotry.

The most important conclusion to draw from this analysis is that there is not some particular government policy decision, or even some overall policy stance, which we could change and thus somehow remove our society from the AQ firing line.

Their nihilism means that our societies would only cease to be a target if we were to renounce all those values of freedom and liberty which we have fought to extend over so many years.

Our only answer to this threat must be to contest and then to defeat it and that is why we need this legislation.

Contesting the threat

I suggest that the best way to contest this threat is by building and strengthening the democracy of our society, by isolating extremism in its various manifestations, by strengthening the legal framework within which we contest terrorism and by developing more effective means to protect our democracy.

So first, in each of our societies we need to strengthen our democracy. That means promoting a society which is based upon the true respect of one individual for another, one culture for another, one faith for another one race for another.

It means promoting the view that democracy is the means of making change in our societies and it means working to strengthen our democracy so that young people from all communities can see the ways in which their engagement in our societies can bring about democratic change and reduce the alienation which can make individuals prey to those who seek to destroy us.

Second, we need to take steps to isolate extremist organisations and those individuals who promote extremism. In so doing it is essential for us to work closely with the mainstream faith communities and to understand their preoccupations.

That is why we need legislation which outlaws incitement to religious or race hatred and makes it clear that glorification of terrorism is not a legitimate political expression of view.

• We wish to encourage faiths to pursue their faith openly and directly.
• We intend to attack the foci of extremist organisation.
• We are working, with international allies as necessary, to identify the networks and individuals who are promoting extremism and we use legal power to disrupt and weaken them.
• We intend to remove from the UK those foreign citizens who are using their time in our country to promote extremism, though this course is not legally straightforward.

All of these measures will further isolate and weaken those extremists who wish to promote terrorism as an appropriate form of activity.

Third we need to strengthen the legal framework within which we can address these issues.

I assert throughout all this the need to retrain and strengthen our human rights and the values which underlie them. But i say at the same time that the right to be protected from the death and destruction caused by indiscriminate terrorism is at least as important as the right of the terrorist to be protected from torture and ill-treatment.

I believe that our peoples expect not only the protection of individual rights but also the protection of democratic values such as safety and security under the law.

 We need a legal framework which seeks to address the difficult balance in these rights. We cannot properly fight terrorism with one legal hand tied behind our back, or give terrorists the unfettered right to defend themselves as they promote and prepare violent attacks on our society.

For that reason we are proposing legal changes in Britain which outlaw acts preparatory to terrorism and terrorist training.

Before I finish outlining the general position, I should point out that the final element of our strategy for combating terrorism is the need to work internationally. This week is the 60th anniversary of the United Nations, and some Members were privileged enough to go to St. Paul's on Monday for a service of thanksgiving and rededication-I emphasise the word "rededication"-to celebrate that anniversary. Lord Ashdown, in his capacity as high representative in Bosnia, was asked to give an address, in which he said:

'We shall be lucky to reach the 70th anniversary of the United Nations without having to deal with chemical, biological or nuclear terrorism.'

 

That was a chilling remark, but not a foolish or stupid one, and it is one against which we need to prepare ourselves.

The United Nations is also seeking to prepare itself. United Nations Security Council resolution 1624, adopted by the Security Council on 14 September this year, addresses that very question, on behalf not of an individual Government but of the whole of the United Nations, precisely because of the threat that Lord Ashdown described. That resolution reaffirms:

• The imperative to combat terrorism in all its forms and manifestations by all means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations
• It condemns in the strongest terms all acts of terrorism irrespective of their motivation, whenever and by whomsoever committed
• The United Nations Security Council also condemns
• In the strongest terms the incitement of terrorist acts and epudiates attempts at the justification or glorification...  of terrorist acts that may incite further terrorist acts
• The resolution expresses deep concern that incitement of terrorist acts motivated by extremism and intolerances poses a serious and growing danger to the enjoyment of human rights...  and must be addressed urgently and proactively by the United Nations and all States and emphasises
  the need to take all necessary and appropriate measures in accordance with international law
• It reaffirms that acts, methods, and practices of terrorism are contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations and that knowingly financing, planning and inciting terrorist acts are also contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations
  

And finally, the resolution calls upon all states to adopt such measures as we are doing today as may be necessary and appropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law to:

That is a very serious statement.

Because of the need for this action, it behoves all parties in the House to carry through the ambitions of the Security Council resolution, which the Bill seeks to do. In all candour, I say to the Liberal Democrats, with whom we have sought to work closely-and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Winchester, who has also sought to work closely with us to address these issues-that their decision to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill weakens that common front of democratic politics against terrorism. Let me tell the House why I say that.

The Liberal Democrats' have legitimate arguments about the definition of terrorism in relation to the term 'glorification', and about the extension of the time limit for detention from 14 days to 90 days. I know that the hon. Member for Winchester has doubts, as he has said publicly and privately to me, about the wisdom of extending that time limit, and he has been perfectly fair about that.

In relation to the structure of debates in the House, however, I do not believe that such doubts, which will be expressed, voted on and considered in Committee and on Report-and which, if so serious, could lead his hon. Friends to vote against the Bill on Third Reading-ought to break the unity of the House in seeking to carry through the principle established on Second Reading. His leader, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr. Kennedy), wrote to The Spectator on 22 October - which I thought was a spectacular thing for him to do - revealing that the Liberal Democrat shadow Cabinet was having a strategy meeting about how to provide the real opposition to the government while the Conservatives are mired in their leadership debate.

I am sure that they are not mired in it; the debates and discussions currently taking place on that matter are inspired and interesting.

If the Liberal Democrats want to provide real opposition to the Government, the way to do that is not to offer knee-jerk opposition to everything, but to work on the basis of principle, to carry things through and to debate things in a proper way. The principled position, in my view, is for the party to vote for Second Reading, and then vote against, as and when the hon. Member for Winchester thinks appropriate, on the particular measures later. Even at this late stage, I hope that the Liberal Democrats will reconsider their position.

I now turn to the specifics of the Bill:

Part 1 of the Bill

Part 1 of the Bill contains several new offences.

The first of these is the offence of encouragement to terrorism, also known as indirect incitement.

Already an offence under our law directly to incite people to commit specific terrorist acts. We now want to be able to deal with those who incite terrorism more obliquely but who nevertheless contribute to creating a climate in which impressionable people might believe that terrorism was acceptable.

The Bill criminalises those who make statements which they believe, or have reasonable grounds for believing, are likely to be understood by their audience as an inducement to commit terrorist acts. 

The Bill extends the provisions to those who disseminate terrorist material, including on the internet, but makes it clear that those who simply transmit material which does not reflect their views will not be caught.

This will, among other things, enable the UK to ratify the Council of European Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism.

The encouragement offence also includes glorification, which was a Manifesto commitment. It was clear that there was considerable unease about the proposal to have a self-contained offence of glorification of terrorism.

However, in the spirit of consensus we have responded to that concern and, accordingly, glorification is now only an offence if the person who glorifies terrorism believes, or has reasonable grounds to believe, that the remarks will be understood as an incitement to carry out terrorist acts.

There has been some concern expressed about the appropriate definition for terrorism.

The definition of terrorism that will apply to the new offences in this Bill is the one that was agreed by Parliament in the Terrorism Act 2000 with the addition of a small change which bring threats against international bodies, such as the United Nations, within the scope of the definition. Beyond that, the Bill uses the definition of terrorism which has become established in our law.

If one looks at those definitions used internationally in comparison, such as the definition used in the recent EU Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002, it would appear that they are not substantially different, and hold no obvious advantages over the definition used in the UK. The United Nations is still seeking agreement, which I think will be difficult to achieve, an appropriate definition.

The Terrorism Bill will not in any way interfere with the right of political demonstration, or with criticism of any regime or of an appeal for change however strongly worded. Nor will it interfere with the rights of individuals to seek other peaceful means for achieving political ends. What it prohibits is the encouragement violent attacks.

The offence of encouragement to terrorism is a serious offence, carrying a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment, and has been framed with a number of safeguards. First, the person making the statement must have known, believed, or have had reasonable grounds for belief that it would have been likely to be understood as an encouragement to terrorism by a member of the audience to whom it was made. Secondly, any prosecution could only proceed with the permission of the Director of Public Prosecutions. He would have to determine whether a prosecution was in the public interest. This is an important safeguard, and not to be taken lightly.

The Bill creates a new offence of acts preparatory to terrorism. This will, I believe, find favour on all sides of the House.

The Bill deals with training for terrorism and makes it an offence to give or receive training for terrorist purposes and to attend a terrorist training camp.

The Bill contains the necessary measures to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Suppression of Nuclear Terrorism.

The Bill also extends the offence of criminal trespass to civil nuclear sites. I understand the sites need the maximum possible protection.

On that theme, we have decided that a small number of key military sites should be covered by the protection afforded by the offence of trespassing on a designated site in sections 128 to 131 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 and an order designating those sites to be protected will be submitted to the House by the My Rt Hon Friend, the Secretary of State for Defence, in due course.

All prosecutions for offences in Part 1 of the Bill require the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions and that any offences involving the affairs of another country also require the consent of the Attorney General.

Part 2

Part 2 of the Bill makes two changes in respect of proscription.

Proscription is an important part of our armoury in the fight against terrorism and I am grateful that the House recently endorsed the Order to proscribe an additional 15 organisations without Division.

The Bill widens the criteria for proscription to encompass those groups which glorify terrorism where it is reasonable to expect that such glorification will be seen by others as an inducement to emulate the terrorist acts in question.

Pre-Charge Detention

Government proposes to increase the maximum period of time that a person can be held prior to charge in terrorist cases from 14 days to three months.

We believe that a compelling case exists for this which is strongly supported by the police.

Lord Carlile of Berriew, a Liberal Democrat peer, said in his report which was published on 12 October:

'I am satisfied beyond doubt that there have been situations in which significant conspiracies to commit terrorist acts have gone unprosecuted as a result of the time limitations placed on the control authorities following arrest.' [paragraph 61]

The case for an extension to three months was set out very clearly in my letter of 6 October to the Opposition spokesmen and the accompanying paper from Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman, the nation's most senior anti-terrorist police officer.

Much of our anti-terrorist legislation derives from our experience of dealing with 30 years of Irish terrorism but we are dealing with a very different threat now. The current time limit is not well designed to deal with this new threat.

Recent terrorist plots have been designed to cause mass casualties, with no warnings, sometimes involving suicide and with the threat of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons. The need to ensure public safety by preventing such attacks means that it is necessary to make arrests at an earlier stage than in the past. This often means that less evidence has been gathered at the point of arrest, which means that more time will be needed to gather sufficient evidence to charge a suspect.

Terrorist networks are often international. This means that enquiries have to be undertaken in many different jurisdictions. Many of those cannot operate to tight timescales.

Establishing the identity of suspects can take a long time. The use of forged and stolen documentation compounds this problem.

The global nature of modern terrorism means that it is often necessary to employ interpreters. It is sometimes necessary to find interpreters who can interpret dialects from remote parts of the world. Such interpreters can be hard to find and this together with interviews to be translated slows down the process and restricts the amount of time available for interviews.

Terrorist cases are highly complex. I remind the House that the investigations into the events of 7 and 21 July has yielded 38,000 exhibits which filled two warehouses, all of which need to be scrutinised. The same investigations have required 80,000 videos of CCTV footage to be studied and 1,400 fingerprints across 160 crime scenes

Terrorist networks are now highly capable of using technology. In recent cases a large number (sometimes in the hundreds) of computers and hard drives have been seized. Much of the data on those computers have been encrypted. The examination and decryption of data on such computers and hard drives takes time and then the data needs to be analysed in order to incorporate the outcome of that analysis into an interview strategy.

Forensic requirements are more complex and time consuming, particularly with the possibility of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear hazards. It often takes a long time to make a site safe before it can be examined. The Al Qaeda methodology of mounting simultaneous attacks extends the time taken for proper crime scene examination and analysis.

The use of mobile telephony by terrorists, as a secure means of communication, is a relatively new phenomenon. It takes time to obtain information from service providers and to subsequently analyse that information to identify linkages between suspects and their locations at key times.

A strong case exists for increasing the maximum detention period. I stress it is a maximum period. Very few cases currently run to 14 days and we would expect an even smaller proportion to run beyond that.

The safeguards that exist are designed to ensure that no one is kept for any longer than absolutely necessary.

All detention beyond 48 hours will have to be authorised on at least a weekly basis by a District judge. The Judge can only permit detention to continue if he is satisfied that it is necessary and that the investigation is being carried out as expeditiously as possible. If that is not the case, the person must be released. 

I am ready to consider at Committee the case for such authorisations to be made by a senior circuit judge as recommended by Lord Carlile.

As now the independent reviewer of our terrorism legislation will be able to monitor the use of this power and report any concerns that he may have.

Part 3

Part 3 of the Bill contains the normal miscellaneous supplemental provisions. I should draw attention to clause 35 which provides for an independent reviewer to be appointed to report on the operation of this legislation as well as the Terrorism Act 2000.

That role is currently performed by Lord Carlile and I am sure the whole House will appreciate the care and attention that he brings to his role. He is noted for his independence of thought so Hon Members may be interested in what he has to say about the Bill:

'I regard the current proposals as providing a set of useful and necessary additions to the law to counter terrorism.' [paragraph 111]

See Also

• Search for Pess Releases