Lord & Lady Sheikh attended the Armed Forces Muslim Association Families Day which was held at RAF Halton. The picture shows Lord Sheikh with Commodore Tim Hennessey RN, Group Captain Zahur Ulhaq (Chairman of Armed Forces Muslim Association), Lieutenant Colonel Mo Usman RLC, Zaheer Ahmad MBE, Imam Asim Hafiz and Corporal Mohsin Mughal (Secretary of the Association) amongst other officers.

A meeting was held at the event where Lord Sheikh made the point that the Armed Forces in the Unied Kingdom are non-political and urged the Muslims to join the Armed Forces and the police force. Lord Sheikh further said that he had been assured by the senior officers in the Armed Forces that promotion would solely be based on the merit of individuals.

At the meeting Group Captain Zahur Ulhaq put forward the idea that we should all consider erecting a memorial in the memory of Muslims who were killed during the two World Wars. Lord Sheikh spoke very much in favour of this idea and said that he would render his support in taking this forward.

Lord Sheikh attended the dinner hosted by Ranjit Singh OBE in honour of Sir Mota Singh to mark the bestowal of the knighthood on him. The photographs show Lord Sheikh with Air Chief Marshal Nirmal Suri, Sir Mota Singh and Ranjit Singh OBE.

Lord Sheikh spoke briefly setting out the achievements of Sir Mota Singh and made the point that Lady Sheikh’s family have known Sir Mota Singh’s family for many years.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures will be put in place to ensure that members of the Muslim community with moderate beliefs are not victimised under the Prevent counterterrorism programme.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones): The Government are committed to protecting all communities. The review of the Prevent strategy will ensure that it is properly targeted and delivered.

Lord Sheikh:

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans are in place to investigate any allegation of spying under the Prevent counterterrorism programme.

Baroness Neville-Jones: Prevent is not, and must not be, about spying on individuals. Previous allegations of spying have been investigated and found to be unsubstantiated. The Government are reviewing Prevent to ensure that it is properly targeted and delivered.

Lord Sheikh:

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps are being taken to ensure that the Prevent counterterrorism programme does not have a negative impact on community cohesion.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the total cost of implementing the Prevent counterterrorism programme; who receives the funding; and how their work is monitored.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether a review is being undertaken of the Prevent counterterrorism programme; and what activities will be undertaken under the programme in future.

Baroness Neville-Jones: Funding specifically paid through the Prevent counterterrorism programme by the Home Office, Office for Security and Counter-terrorism (OSCT), in the financial year 2009-10 was approximately £30 million. Funds were used to support Prevent activity in a number of other government departments and voluntary and community-based organisations. These funds are allocated and monitored in line with relevant departmental procedures. Prevent activity is also funded separately by other government departments.

The Government will review the Prevent strand of the counterterrorism strategy by January 2011 to ensure it is properly focused and makes an appropriate contribution to dealing with extremism, and to achieve a clear separation from work to promote integration led by the Communities and Local Government department.

Lord Sheikh spoke in the House of Lords on the Terrorist Asset-Freezing Bill: Second Reading. Click here to view his speech.

In overcoming the threat of terrorism, we need clear understanding and constant vigilance. I congratulate the Government on the recent announcement of a successful conclusion to negotiations between the European Union and the United States Treasury on the exchange of information on terrorist finance tracking. One part of frustrating the evil intentions of those who inflict terrorism across the world is to starve them of resources-and this lies at the core of the Bill.

It is timely that we should be considering our approach to the terrorist threat just a few weeks after the fifth anniversary of the 7/7 suicide bombing attacks in London, which resulted in the deaths of 52 people. Thankfully, there has been no other major successful terrorist assault in this country since that day. That has not been because the threat has dissipated, and we should not allow complacency to creep into our considerations.

We should not allow a debate to take place on terrorism-and counterterrorism-without spending a moment reflecting on some of the issues that cause terrorism: alienation, grievance, demonisation, a sense of injustice, whether real or perceived, exclusion and political issues. We cannot expect to overcome the terrorist threat without acknowledging the role that these factors play in motivating the disaffected to move towards violence and terrorist atrocities. We need to examine and find remedies relating to the root causes of extremism and terrorism. Community cohesion and counterterrorism are not the same thing and they should not be confused. They are complementary and there are links. We must therefore regard the two issues in the appropriate manner.

Similarly, we need to recognise that the threat from terrorists arises from a multitude of different areas and groups. Those who are radicalised with terrorist sympathies are not restricted to one particular group, religion or region. At this stage, I should like to follow up on what the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, said and make the point that nearly all Muslims are law-abiding and good citizens who are against any form of extremism and terrorism. However, I appreciate that there is a problem with a tiny minority of people who do not follow the true principles of Islam. Islam forbids any form of suicide bombing. It is, indeed, a religion of peace. For example, when we greet each other, we say “As salaam alaikum”, which means “The peace of God be upon you”. As a Peer, I have a coat of arms, and on it I have two doves because I want to give the message that Islam is indeed a religion of peace.

Clause 1 of the Bill defines individuals who have been labelled “designated persons” by the Treasury. This clause is also of extreme importance in ensuring that we fulfil our obligations in implementing United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373. This provision ensures that asset-freezing measures are applied to groups and individuals who engage in or financially support terrorist activities.

Designated persons can be defined only by competent authorities. However, I feel it is important that all competent authorities in United Nations member states act in harmony to make sure that the necessary procedures are followed to combat terrorism on a global basis. It is important to achieve a degree of consistency in tackling cross-border terrorism. I should be grateful if the Minister could advise your Lordships’ House whether bodies in addition to the Treasury will gain status as competent authorities in the near future for the purposes of this legislation.

Clause 2 covers the Treasury’s power to designate persons. This includes instances when the Treasury has reasonable grounds to suspect an individual or group of engaging in terrorist activities. I am concerned by this requirement, as Resolution 1373 expressly states that the assets of those who commit, or attempt to commit, acts of terrorism should be frozen. The resolution does not extend to those whom competent authorities suspect of terrorist activity. Therefore, the burden of proof is not satisfied under this clause.

Furthermore, we must be mindful that whatever we enact could not be construed as a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states that all individuals are entitled to respect for their family and private life in accordance with the law.

Our criminal justice system is based on the principle that individuals are innocent until proven guilty. Any attempt to interfere with this principle would be to the detriment of our society. Even if a person is proven innocent, there may be a possibility that the person will be branded a terrorist. This could be damaging to a person’s future prospects. Is there any scope for awarding compensation to those who have had their assets frozen prior to acquittal?

Clause 4 states that a designation issued by the Treasury expires within one year unless renewed. The clause gives the Treasury authority to renew a designation at any time before it expires if there are reasonable grounds for doing so. I fear that this clause may encounter the same difficulties as Clause 2. The clause states that a designation may be renewed more than once. However, there is no specification as to how many times a designation can be renewed. I would welcome greater clarification as to the powers of the Treasury concerning the duration. If these powers are wrongly used by those in authority, it could have long-lasting and devastating consequences for individuals and the integrity of this department.

Clause 20 makes reference to the need for co-operation with internal and international investigations. I strongly support this clause; it is in our best interests to work with our European and wider partners to achieve this aim. Foreign policy and national security are intertwined and should be treated as such.

The success of our foreign policy will work to promote our national interests and security both at home and abroad. The question of national security covers a multitude of areas, which is why a narrow approach to this issue has a limited chance of success. Co-operation with our neighbours in the European Union, our partners in the Commonwealth, transatlantic allies and other international organisations is vital to ensuring that we successfully combat terrorism. This threat is not just limited to one continent and therefore requires a multilateral solution. Counterterrorism is dependent on international co-operation, and a vigilance to identify the emerging and constantly altering threats to our security.

I welcome Clauses 33 and 34 as they clearly define the meaning of “funds”, “economic resources” and “financial services”. These are key terms for the purposes of the prohibition stated in Clauses 8 and 9. These two clauses make it an offence for funds and financial services to be made available to designated persons.

At this stage, I would like to declare an interest as I am the chairman of an organisation which provides insurances and financial services. I feel that companies which offer financial services as stated in this clause should be given the appropriate assistance in understanding the requirements of this legislation.

I would be grateful if the Minister could inform your Lordships’ House as to whether any guidance and information will be made available to companies which provide financial services. I wholeheartedly endorse the principles that these measures are seeking to embody in law. We need to maintain our defences and be vigilant in tackling the threat posed by terrorism. We should be robust in seeking to prevent those who cause actual terrorism drawing on the resources that they need to inflict the injury of their design.

I am, however, of the opinion that we must ensure that the provisions of the Bill do not compromise the human rights of law-abiding citizens. This country has a proud history of promoting democratic values around the world and in our local communities. Although we are in a heightened state of security in terms of domestic and external threats, legislation must not be allowed to compromise our civil liberties. It is important to strike a balance to ensure that no ethnic or social group feels as though it is the constant target of discrimination. We must co-operate internationally and focus on marginalising those who idolise or endorse terrorism. We are bound to ensure that we approach the matter in a proportionate, measured and effective manner. It is only through detailed scrutiny that this House can content itself that the Bill meets those tests.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps are being taken to increase community programmes that promote interfaith dialogue and cohesion.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham): In the present financial year my department is supporting Faiths in Action, a small grants scheme through which grants of up to £6,000 are made to support innovative local inter faith projects. Information about the programme may be found on the website of the Community Development Foundation. My department will also be making financial support available for activities in Inter Faith Week this November.

We have made these spending commitments, which total over £2 million, because we recognise that inter faith dialogue and action do much to increase community cohesion. Future financial support for cohesion and other programmes is a matter for the spending review which will conclude in the autumn. Meanwhile, the Government are working closely with the Christian churches and other faith communities to ensure that they are involved in building the big society, in which individuals and groups take responsibility for improving their communities.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the Government of Iran about allegations of violence against women.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): The UK is concerned by the plight of women in Iran. On 3 June 2010, on the occasion of women’s day in Iran, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Alistair Burt, released a statement to show his support for women activists in Iran. Furthermore, he raised the issue of women’s rights during a meeting with the Iranian ambassador on 19 July.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made recently to the Government of Iran about human rights.

Lord Howell of Guildford: We believe that the human rights situation in Iran is deplorable, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office continues to take opportunities to raise human rights with the Government of Iran in both a bilateral context, and with EU partners. In the past two months, the Government have made a number of statements about the human rights situation and have met Iranian officials including most recently when my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Alistair Burt, met the Iranian ambassador on 19 July 2010. Furthermore, in Geneva last month, the UK signed up to a cross-regional statement by Norway and signed by 55 other states calling on Iran to improve urgently its human rights record.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many persons travelling in the United Kingdom have been searched using body scanners or have had their luggage screened at international airports in the United Kingdom in the last (a) three, (b) six, and (c) 12 months.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many persons from ethnic minorities have been searched using body scanners or have had their luggage screened when travelling into the United Kingdom in the last (a) three, (b) six, and (c) 12 months.

Earl Attlee: The screening of passengers and baggage flying into the UK takes place at the point of departure and is the responsibility of the departing state.

Security (body) scanners have been operationally deployed in the UK since 1 February 2010 for the screening of departing passengers. In the subsequent five months to 1 July 2010, approximately 250,000 people have been screened by security scanners at UK airports. Passengers may be selected for security scanning on a random basis, or if they cause other detection systems to alarm.

The Government require that airports ensure that passengers selected for security scanning be afforded an opportunity to provide details of their age, gender, race, ethnic origin and religion or beliefs. Airports are collecting these data by a number of methods. We are considering how best to analyse these data and have also sought the views of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

We will consider this further alongside the responses to the public consultation on the use of security scanners, which closed on 19 July. All departing baggage is subjected to security screening at UK airports.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many British citizens are detained in Iranian prisons.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): We were made aware of one dual Iranian-British national detained in December 2009, who may still be detained. We are only able to provide consular assistance to dual nationals in the country of their other nationality if they request it and if the country of their other nationality agrees. In this case we have been asked by the next of kin not to provide consular assistance or to make representations on their behalf. We therefore cannot confirm if the individual remains in detention.

We are aware of no other British detainees in Iran.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether ethnic background is one of the criteria for searching or screening the luggage of those travelling into the United Kingdom at international airports.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones): Ethnic background is not one of the criteria used for searching or screening luggage for customs or immigration purposes of persons travelling into the United Kingdom.