Prevention of Terrorism

HC Deb 16 March 1999 vol 327 cc999-1017 10.27 pm

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw)

I beg to move, That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 4th March, be approved. I am aware of the long line of Home Secretaries who, since 1974, have risen to speak at the Dispatch Box, as I do now, to propose the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 for a further year. In doing so, many of them have reflected on the mixture of signs of optimism and violence that have characterised the preceding year. I, too, shall draw the House's attention to some of the key events, encouraging and depressing, over the 12 months since the previous renewal debate.

However, I am perhaps the first Home Secretary in 25 years to say that I hope that this may be one of the last—although maybe not the last—of the annual debates on the renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act. As the House will be aware, the Government propose the introduction of permanent counter-terrorist legislation, which we hope will do away with the need for the annual renewal of temporary provisions.

That approach recognises the sad but incontrovertible reality that even a lasting peace in Northern Ireland—something that we all pray and hope will be firmly established soon—would not of itself remove the need for counter-terrorist legislation. Terrorism, and the threat of terrorism from a range of fronts, is likely to continue to exist for the foreseeable future. Although the focus of today's debate is on the renewal of the powers under our current prevention of terrorism legislation, I also intend in closing to say something about our plans for future legislation.

Looking back over the past 12 months, I am struck by what an extraordinary period of highs and lows it has been. Less than six weeks after the House agreed the renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act for a further 12 months, the Good Friday agreement was signed. It was subsequently endorsed by 71 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland and provides the means to take Northern Ireland on the road to lasting peace.

My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and many others on both sides of the House continue to work tirelessly with all the parties to achieve the full implementation of the agreement and to see the Executive established by the first anniversary of the Good Friday agreement. I think that the whole House recognises that this is Northern Ireland's best chance for peace in decades and it must not be allowed to slip from our grasp.

By contrast, the interception in July in London of six primed fire-bombs, and the appalling Omagh bombing on 15 August last year—in which 29 people lost their lives, and over 200 were injured—brought home forcefully the residual threat from renegade groups opposed to the Northern Ireland peace process.

Yesterday, we had a further shocking reminder of the depths to which terrorist groups in the north of Ireland will stoop. Rosemary Nelson, the prominent human rights lawyer and mother of three young children, was murdered in cold blood outside her own home. Her death was claimed by the Red Hand Defenders, a loyalist splinter group bitterly opposed to the Belfast agreement. The proscription of the group and—subject to parliamentary approval—its specification was announced less than two weeks ago, and rightly so.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

I join my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in mourning the loss of Rosemary Nelson in yesterday's terrible events. Is he prepared to examine the question of the security provided to Rosemary Nelson, who clearly was a target of extreme groups, and suffered accordingly?

Mr. Straw

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be happy to look into those matters if representations are made to her by representatives of the family of Rosemary Nelson.

The Royal Ulster Constabulary has invited David Phillips, the chief constable of Kent, to oversee the inquiry into Rosemary Nelson's murder. It has also invited the Federal Bureau of Investigation to provide an input into the investigation. Those measures, which the Government welcome, demonstrate the RUC's commitment to a full and independent inquiry into this terrible crime.

I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in conveying our sympathy to the family of Rosemary Nelson at this time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that that was reiterated on both sides of the House. We must restate our commitment to see peace established in Northern Ireland, and the actions of those dreadful murderers must not be allowed to succeed.

There is also the threat of international terrorism. The bombings—also in early August last year—of the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, with the loss of more than 250 lives, were a shocking illustration of the scale of indiscriminate violence that international terrorists are prepared to unleash whenever they see their opportunity.

In the past few months, the horrific events in the Yemen, and more recently in Uganda—which resulted in the deaths of four and eight tourists respectively, including seven British citizens—have further emphasised the global reach of international terror.

Our response to all this is twofold. We will do all that we can in the international and domestic context to help to establish peace and stability, and, alongside that, we will do all that we can with the police and security agencies to counter terrorism directly.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

Will my right hon. Friend—a senior member of the Cabinet—reflect on the fact that, however terrible the events in east Africa were, we endorsed the American bombing of the A1 Shifa factory in Khartoum without any evidence—and, it now transpires, almost certainly no grounds whatever—for doing so? Day by day, Tornados and American aircraft are raining down mayhem on Iraq, and we are threatening to bomb the Serbs. Ought there not to be some reflection on the fact that violence begets violence?

Mr. Straw

I have great affection for my hon. Friend, with whom I dislike disagreeing—but, I am afraid, I do disagree on this occasion. There has been enormous reflection on any military action that the Government have supported, as was the case with the American action over the Sudanese so-called pharmaceutical factory, and in terms of Iraq and Serbia. Before such action can be taken, there is a huge degree of careful reflection in the Cabinet by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Defence and all those involved in those decisions.

I am not a pacifist, and I do not think that my hon. Friend is. There are occasions when military action has to be taken. There is a world of difference between action endorsed by the United Nations and/or NATO for a specific, lawful and legitimate purpose and the wholly indiscriminate violence against the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in which 250 lives were lost and many more were injured. As far as I recall, nobody was killed in the action against the alleged pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. The action was proportionate to the problem that the United States and we had identified.

The twin approach of which I was speaking was well illustrated by the recall of Parliament in early September to enact the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998, to strengthen our anti-terrorist laws against dissident Irish terrorist groups and our conspiracy laws in relation to terrorism and other crimes.

Mr. John D. Taylor (Strangford)

The Secretary of State spoke about possible sources of terrorism, such as Iraq. What is the potential for extreme Islamist terrorism within the United Kingdom? There are links with the United Kingdom in the case in Yemen. Is there a growing threat within our own territory?

Mr. Straw

There is some threat within our territory. I must first make it clear that, although the phrase "Islamist terrorism" is used in common parlance, we ought to avoid it. We do not use the phrase "Christian terrorism", or indeed "Catholic terrorism" or "Protestant terrorism", to categorise some of the terrible events that have taken place in Northern Ireland. We avoid implying that the religions followed entirely lawfully by the vast majority of people are somehow a cause of terrorist activities. The overwhelming majority of followers of Islam here, as in every other country, are wholly law abiding.

The problem is middle eastern terrorism based on territorial challenges and on tribalism, which seeks to justify itself by reference to Islam. The lawful Islamic groups in this country are very sensitive on the matter. I make that point at some length because it is a real issue of sensitivity for the British Muslim community, which is entirely lawful. Middle eastern terrorism is an acknowledged threat, and the security and intelligence agencies and the police take it very seriously and monitor it carefully.

The key to the prevention of terrorism is to ensure that the police and others have all the powers that they need to deter, disrupt and investigate. I pay tribute to the diligence, the immense hard work and the bravery of the police and the security forces in their daily efforts on our behalf.

Informing our debate today is the report prepared by John Rowe QC. I am very grateful to Mr. Rowe for the work that he has undertaken in the past 12 months, as he has in previous years. He advises that the powers in the Act, including the powers of arrest, detention and stop and search, and the terrorist investigation powers, were all used appropriately and proportionately in 1998 and should remain in force for 1999. As exclusion order powers were not included in last year's order, Mr. Rowe has not considered those powers in his report.

The order does not contain exclusion powers. It has been the Government's long-standing view that exclusion orders are wrong on policy grounds—in that they may be used to exclude British citizens by Executive order from part of the national territory—and that they have in any case proved to be of limited utility.

As long as the powers remain on the statute book, as they will have to until there is primary legislation, they could of course be reactivated on security grounds, but I find it hard to conceive of the circumstances in which I would decide that that would be expedient, and our consultation paper on our proposals for future legislation makes it clear that we do not envisage carrying them across into our new permanent anti-terrorist laws. Of course our ability, under the Immigration Act 1971, to deport, or deny entry to, suspected international terrorists will remain unchanged.

Returning to the issues raised in Mr. Rowe's report, I was especially pleased to read of the care that he found was taken in respect of all the relatively small number of complaints received about the operation of the powers under the prevention of terrorism Act. We must never lose sight of the fact that the powers available under this legislation are exceptional and must be exercised with the utmost integrity and diligence. It is absolutely right that any complaints are treated seriously. Therefore, it is pleasing and reassuring to learn that there were relatively few complaints in 1998 and that Mr. Rowe considers that all those were dealt with conscientiously.

The specific anti-terrorist provisions in the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998, which amended sections of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, also fall to be renewed for the first time in the order before the House. I shall remind the House what those measures mean. First, they mean that the opinion of a senior police officer is admissible in court as evidence of membership of proscribed and specified terrorist organisations. That includes the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA but, subject to parliamentary approval, not the Irish National Liberation Army. Secondly, courts may draw inferences from a suspect's refusal to answer questions during an investigation into membership of a proscribed and specified terrorist group. As hon. Members may remember, it is not possible, under the legislation, for a suspect to he convicted solely on the basis of inferences allowed under the Act or on the statement of a police officer alone.

As Mr. Rowe points out in his report, there have not so far been any convictions in connection with the new provisions, but that cannot be the sole criterion for judging their effectiveness. The measures were introduced as a targeted response to the small, but very dangerous, renegade groups who are bent on destroying the Northern Ireland peace process, and have no regard for the human life that they would destroy at the same time. The fact that similar action was also taken in September in the Irish Parliament sent a powerful signal of the total repudiation from people both sides of the border of those renegade groups and all that they stand for.

However, the provisions are more than a symbolic gesture. They are there so that it is possible to take robust action against any who, in the face of the express wishes of the people of the island of Ireland, choose to support groups not observing total and unequivocal ceasefires. All of us hope that the support for those groups withers away, but, if it does not, the strengthened provisions are there to assist in bringing those people to book.

That leads me to touch on the observations that Mr. Rowe offers in his report about the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act and the European convention on human rights. In his report, Mr. Rowe concludes that most of the measures in the Act do not raise issues of possible incompatibility. Indeed, he points out that, although it has been possible for individuals to bring cases to the European Court of Human Rights since 1966, only two cases have been dealt with by the court in all that time, and a violation was found in only one of those. It is fair to say, therefore, that our ECHR record, vis-a-vis the prevention of terrorism Act, is good.

However, Mr. Rowe does raise concerns about the compatibility of the new membership provisions, enacted last September, with article 6 of the European convention on human rights, which provides for a right to a fair trial. It may not surprise the House to learn that I part company with him on that point. I can assure the House, as I made clear when the emergency legislation was introduced in September, that the whole issue of compatibility with the ECHR was looked at extremely closely before the Bill was published and that I was, and remain, satisfied that the provisions are compatible with the convention. We would not have introduced the legislation in that form if we had believed that it was incompatible with our obligations under the convention.

We have, of course, looked again at the provisions in the light of the specific points made by Mr. Rowe in his report, and I do not lightly take issue with his conclusions, but his arguments—which we have studied with great care—have not caused us to change our position. That is something on which we will have to agree to differ, unless and until these questions are settled in the courts. As Mr. Rowe himself has pointed out, his conclusions are very provisional indeed, and the matter will ultimately be decided by the courts.

I shall make a few remarks about our proposals for new counter-terrorist legislation. The House will be aware that the Government issued a consultation paper, "Legislation Against Terrorism", just before Christmas, inviting, as it happens, responses by 16 March, which is today. In it, we argued that, because of the range of terrorist threats that the United Kingdom faces, there will be a need for continuous United Kingdom-wide anti-terrorist powers, even when lasting peace is established in Northern Ireland.

Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire)

Will the Home Secretary take this opportunity to feel the slightest twinge of embarrassment at the fact that, from 1983 to 1995, the Labour party consistently opposed renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act? Will he apologise to the nation for getting it wrong for 12 years? His remarks tonight make it quite clear that we were right to renew the Act on every occasion.

Mr. Straw

I am not remotely going to apologise, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman chooses to mix it in what ought to be a bipartisan debate. If he cares to read the debates over the years—I have studied every one of them—he will find that there was never an argument about the need for anti-terrorist legislation. We never made that argument, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear during his first debate as shadow Home Secretary in 1993, and again in 1994.

Our arguments were about proportionality in the use of the powers, which was on a different scale during the 1980s. We also argued over the question of a judicial element in extensions of detention and, in particular, over the use of exclusion powers. We have made it clear that there will in future be a judicial element to extensions of detention. As for exclusion powers, I have done exactly what I told the House we would do when I spoke in the final two PTA debates before the general election. I said that we would not use the exclusion orders, and they were wound down quickly after the election. They have since been suspended from the face of the Bill.

As is widely recognised, the time has come to put anti-terrorist legislation on a permanent footing. We envisage legislation that is flexible enough to be able to respond to the ever-changing nature of terrorism, that is effective and proportionate to the threat that the UK faces, that protects the rights of individuals and that complies with our international commitments.

We hope and expect that, by the time new legislation is introduced, the threat from Irish terrorism should have diminished to the point at which no additional special powers are necessary to combat it. If the security situation suggests that some particular measure is needed, it will be included in a temporary additional section of the Act, subject, as the prevention of terrorism Act is at present, to annual independent review and to Parliament's annual approval to its staying in force. Whatever the circumstances in Northern Ireland, we shall ensure that powers necessary to the security forces in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the UK will be on the statute book and will be available to the security forces and the police.

This is not the place to detail the measures that we propose to take. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members have had the opportunity to read our paper. We are determined to strike the right balance between giving the police and other agencies the powers that they need to fight terrorism and guarding the civil liberties of people affected by the exercise of those powers. We recognise that it will not be an easy task, and we will carefully consider all the responses that we receive to our consultation document.

Let me turn again to the focus of today's debate. The question before us is whether the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act should remain in force for a further 12 months. I judge that it is vital that those engaged in the fight against terrorism should have the powers that they need. The Act must therefore be renewed.

10.49 pm

Sir Norman Fowler (Sutton Coldfield)

I shall be brief. I join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to Mr. Rowe for his report. The report argues—to my mind, utterly convincingly—that the Act is needed for a further year, and we support that continuance absolutely. If any extra argument were needed, that was provided by the appalling murder of Rosemary Nelson this week—something that the whole House deplores as yet another example of the sickening use of the car bomb by a terrorist group. I applaud the action of the Chief Constable of the RUC in emphasising the independence of the investigation into that murder.

Such terrorist atrocities have continued for more than 30 years. When I was a journalist on The Times, I was sent to cover some of the earliest violence in the late 1960s, and that violence has continued throughout the time that I have been a Member of Parliament. During my days as a journalist, I spent some time with the RUC and the then Chief Constable; a lasting result of that experience is a great admiration for the men and women of the RUC, who have suffered terrible casualties in the battles and actions in which they have taken part, year after year.

What is significant about Mr. Rowe's report is that it demonstrates that, even in 1998, the level of violence was enormous and the terrorist challenge immense. Chapter 4 succinctly describes the situation in Northern Ireland: Paramilitary organisations are still in being, and some of them have not announced a ceasefire. There are dissident elements who are intent upon causing injury and damage, and they have the capacity to do so. All in all there is a real threat that some terrorist activity will continue in Northern Ireland and there is no reason to think that it will not extend to Great Britain. Mr. Rowe continues: There have been explosions of bombs, and attempts to carry our bombing attacks … There have been hundreds of beatings carried out for a paramilitary purpose, many of them in circumstances of great brutality, and some of them ending in death. He adds that, in 1998: In Northern Ireland there have been 55 deaths, caused by terrorist attacks. He ends: My conclusion is this: criminals with a terrorist or paramilitary disposition have the means to carry out attacks with explosives and firearms at any time; furthermore, some of them have maintained an organisation which has structure and influence. Therefore there is a need for the PTA so far as concerns terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. I entirely agree with him, and accept his conclusion.

The Conservatives' position is that the Belfast agreement offers the prospect of a genuine and lasting peace underpinned by stable political institutions. There is now a real chance that the terrorist events that have characterised the past 30 years might be brought to an end, but no one should doubt that difficulties still lie ahead. The peace in Northern Ireland is in many respects imperfect. The main terrorist organisations, with their command and control structures, remain firmly intact; they are continuing to target potential victims and recruit and train members. Far from making a start on decommissioning their illegally held arms and explosives as they are required to do under the Belfast agreement, the evidence suggests that, at times, they are even seeking new and more sophisticated weaponry.

Even in the event of the agreement succeeding, the terrorist threat is likely to remain at a high level, perhaps for some time. As the Home Secretary said, the Omagh bombing in 1998—the single worst atrocity of the past 30 years—was carried out by a republican splinter group; and the murder of Rosemary Nelson is the work of another splinter group. The terrorist threat remains, but it is by no means confined to Northern Ireland: there are other forms of domestic terrorism and the problems of international terrorism, to which the Home Secretary has referred. The Government's consultation paper rightly points out that, not only has the threat from such groups increased in recent years, but they have access to increasingly sophisticated weapons and methods. That was recognised by the previous Conservative Government, who extended the powers of the Prevention of Terrorism Act to cover that development.

Faced with the continuing threat from all forms of terrorism, Conservative Members support unequivocally renewing the legislation for a further year. We have always taken the strongest stance against terrorism and backed measures designed to deal effectively with it.

Mr. Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Hall Green)

Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the persistent, and perhaps tedious, interventions by his hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) of the kind that we have witnessed most recently—suggesting repeatedly that the Labour party is opposed to this approach—undermine the sincerity of his bipartisan case? Does the right hon. Gentleman regret his hon. Friend's interventions?

Sir Norman Fowler

I do not regret my hon. Friend's interventions. I add, in passing, that our backing for the Government on the Prevention of Terrorism Act contrasts with the actions of the then Labour Opposition. From 1983 to 1995, Labour opposed the Act's annual renewal. In 1995, Labour took the decision to abstain from the vote—the Home Secretary appears to find this rather amusing, but he abstained in 1995. I do not intend to mix it in any shape or form, but I must point out that Labour has changed its position. We welcome that, and we will support that position in a bipartisan manner—which is exactly what we are doing.

We also believe that the improvements in the security situation made possible by the progress in Northern Ireland make this an opportune time to examine the future requirements of the United Kingdom in respect of counter-terrorist legislation. We are examining the Government's consultation paper. The Government's recommendations build, in large part, upon the work of Lord Lloyd, and make practical sense. Like Lloyd, they are predicated on the establishment of lasting peace in Northern Ireland. While we agree that it is right to move forward in this area, nothing should be contemplated that diminishes our ability to deal with the existing threat and any threat that might occur in the future.

Therefore, I add one point about the position in Northern Ireland. We know the difficulties and the dangers. Successive Governments have worked for peace, and the position is more hopeful now than it has been for the past 30 years. As the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Sir Ronnie Flanagan, put it: Despite all of these barriers to the ultimate elimination of violence, there remains a solid basis for optimism and hope for the future. Of course, there will be setbacks. Of course there will be attempted attacks by those desperate to resist peace and reconciliation but the overwhelming trend of movement is clearly in the positive direction. Things have changed dramatically for the good and all those of influence must continue to positively exert that influence". They are wise words, and it is very much in that spirit that we support the order.

10.59 pm

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

I am concerned about one thing: misdirected vengeance. For example, nearly two years ago, with the Home Secretary's agreement, I went to Scotland Yard to see Assistant Commissioner David Veness about the brutal murder of Woman Police Constable Yvonne Fletcher. That case has repeatedly been given as a reason for our maintaining support for rather brutal sanctions against Libya. If there were no doubt whatever about that case, that position would at least be understandable, but Scotland Yard continues to press for a decision—I am told that one is just around the corner—on an investigation that I do not doubt they take extremely seriously.

David Veness said to me, "We have about half a dozen cases that, above all, we really want to solve. Yvonne Fletcher was one of our own. You can take it, Mr. Dalyell, that we really want to solve that case." I do not doubt that Scotland Yard is working extremely hard on it. Will the Home Secretary therefore tell the House when that case is likely to be concluded? If there is a degree of uncertainty about that case, how in heaven's name can it be a basis for international policy?

Reference was made earlier to the Al Shifa factory. I have been to see R. J. P. Williams, who has been a fellow of Wadham college at Oxford for some 40 years and is professor of inorganic chemistry at that university, a Royal Society professor and the greatest European expert on EMTA, or O ethyl methyl phosphonoic acid. In long letters which make up part of a huge correspondence with the Prime Minister, Professor Williams says that he is now certain that the Al Shifa factory had nothing whatever to do with the VX precursors that apparently caused all the trouble. He said also that anyone would have to be out of their mind to make VX precursors in a factory that did not even have airtight doors in a built-up area in a capital city. No one would do that.

There comes a time when we say that the vengeance that has been wreaked is ill-directed and wrong. This is not the occasion, in such a short debate, to take up time discussing Iraq, but I plead with a senior member of the Cabinet to imagine what it must be like for traumatised kids and old people to face the threat of bombing night after night. I say gently to the Home Secretary that those of us who are of a generation that has done national service or have experience of Northern Ireland—a subject on which I speak with great humility—know what horror is being unleashed. Is there a moral justification for that? What justifies it?

A brutal fact must be faced: in whole swathes of Africa and Asia, let alone the Arab world, President Clinton and the British Prime Minister, Defence Secretary and Foreign Secretary are regarded as terrorists. That is very disagreeable for us, but it is nevertheless a fact. Once we start unleashing such bombs, God help us if we try to take on the Slays, with all that that entails. We are tarred with that which we deprecate. I shall leave it at that, but I should like the Home Secretary to comment on the Fletcher situation.

11.3 pm

Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke)

In previous debates on our annual review of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, hon. Members may sometimes have felt a sense of deja vu as seasoned participants recited their well-known and well-rehearsed positions. This year, the debate is different. For the first time in our review of anti-terrorism legislation, we may consider aspects of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 and take into account the implications for the PTA of the Human Rights Act 1998. Also for the first time, we can take into account the Government's wider thinking on anti-terrorism legislation, as outlined in the Home Office consultation paper. Each of those factors is novel to this debate.

As Mr. Rowe makes clear in his report, the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 will affect the implementation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, not least where the PTA gives effect to the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998. Mr. Rowe's report does not make entirely encouraging reading. It opens the Government to the accusation that what they are trying to do with one Act, the renewal of the PTA, they undermine with another, the Human Rights Act 1998.

Under the Human Rights Act, the courts will be required to interpret the PTA to uphold the European convention on human rights. The fact that they will be required to take into account any relevant judgment of the European Court of Human Rights and the fact that case law of the European Court will be part of the jurisprudence of the United Kingdom may, as Mr. Rowe acknowledges, affect the implementation of the PTA—some parts more than others. From now on, to a far greater extent, the important matter will be how the powers of the PTA have been exercised in an individual case.

The Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act—I make this point in relation to what has been said earlier in this debate—has not had any effect on the pursuit of the Omagh bombers.

Section 2A of the PTA, which was introduced under the terrorism and conspiracy Act, provides that on a charge of membership of a proscribed organisation, a police officer may give evidence that in his opinion the defendant belongs to a specified organisation. There is legitimate cause for concern here. Paragraph 58 of Mr. Rowe's report states: In my view there may, in the use and application of this section, be a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, where the police officer speaks of what another person … told him, or what sensitive information tells him. On inference from silence, Mr. Rowe comments in paragraph 62 in respect of the Human Rights Act: Whether there will be a breach of the European Convention will depend upon the circumstances of the particular case.

Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the matter goes beyond simply a possible breach of the European convention? We were certainly led to believe in debates on incorporating the convention that it was the bottom line. Does he therefore agree that simply as a departure from normal legal practice in this country, the two provisions to which he has referred ought to give cause for considerable concern?

Mr. Hunter

Yes, I do. My hon. Friend makes the point that I am trying to make more succinctly. If he bears with me, I will continue to develop it. Another section in Mr. Rowe's report substantiates his argument.

In paragraph 63, Mr. Rowe points out that because "PACE inference" is different from "PTA inference", there is a danger of confusion where several charges are brought against a defendant, and that could constitute unfairness, as defined by the European convention on human rights. Mr. Rowe also suggests, as no doubt my hon. Friend is aware, that in some circumstances the same can be said of sections 14 and 16A. To put it mildly, it is profoundly unsatisfactory that the Government have created what, at the very least, is a grey area, and may prove to be much worse. That and the fact that the powers of the new section 2A have not been used since they were enacted goes a considerable way towards justify the cynicism that some of us feel about the interaction of the PTA and the Human Rights Act 1998.

As for the order in the wider context of the Government's review of legislation against terrorism, I do not object in principle to the proposition that the PTA and the Emergency Provisions Act should be replaced with one piece of permanent legislation, provided some flexibility is retained to enable the Government to respond to exceptionally serious or unforeseen circumstances.

With regard to the consultation paper and the order, to be ultra-selective, first, on balance, I believe that the Government are probably right to think in terms of introducing a judicial element into the extension of detention—section 14 of the Act. I changed my thinking on that issue towards the end of the previous Parliament. However, I still maintain that the case for judicial involvement is not so overwhelming as some of its advocates maintain. There are dangers and there are difficulties, not least the risk of compromising the judiciary by widening its role from being only and strictly judicial, and involving it in the process of prosecution.

Secondly, I hope that the Government will take very serious note indeed of Mr. Rowe's emphasis on the key role of port and border controls in detecting and detecting terrorism. He especially stresses the importance of adequate manpower. He reports in paragraph 114 that there is as much need as ever for the presence of port officers, from the point of view, of both terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland, and terrorism in the international field. Thirdly, with regard to the consultation paper and this order, there remain two areas where, without apology, I continue to quarrel with the Government. I shall not repeat the arguments in detail—they are well rehearsed—but merely refer to them. It remains my belief that the Government are making a monumental error in dispensing with the power to intern and the power to exclude. I note with interest, however, that the Government are retaining the power to exclude from the United Kingdom to the Republic of Ireland; I approve of that.

In my judgment, the powers to intern and to exclude, when used on a basis of sound intelligence, can be an effective means of severing the chain of command and communication without which terrorists cannot commit acts of terror. I am convinced that both powers should be available for use, and I remain convinced that the Government's ability to deter and detect terrorism is weakened by abandoning them.

Notwithstanding my objections in those respects, and unlike Labour Members when they were in opposition, if there is a Division, I shall vote in support of the order.

To conclude, as far as the order goes, I support the Government. Mr. Rowe has concluded that the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 has been used properly in the past year and that, in respect of both terrorism related to the affairs of Northern Ireland and international terrorism, its powers are still needed. Continuing terrorist activity in Northern Ireland and on the mainland in relation to the affairs of Northern Ireland, and the escalating reality of international terrorism confirm that. I do not believe that the House has good reason to disagree with Mr. Rowe.

11.15 pm

Mr. Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire)

Here we are again—same old story. Rosemary Nelson happens to be the latest victim of the long, sad catalogue of violence that caused us to implement the Prevention of Terrorism Act in the first place. Responsibility for that attack seems to rest on the Red Hand Defenders. What does that name mean? What are they defending—the right to violence, the right to kill? Such events hold no promise of hope for those involved, and call for no half-hearted response from us, any more than the legislation lends itself to compromise. It is all or nothing.

If we vote against the continuance of the order tonight, we would not be voting against any one part of it, but throwing out the whole thing, leaving Northern Ireland and Britain less protected than experience has shown we need to be at present. Therefore it will not come as a surprise for me to reveal that the Liberal Democrats will support the continuance order tonight.

It is a case of balancing the rights of the public, and civil liberties, with the rights of people rightly or wrongly accused of heinous terrorist crimes. If those crimes are committed, some members of the public will lose their lives. However, as civil democrats, none of us in the Chamber can support the removal of some fairly fundamental rights from an individual for less than fundamental reasons.

The questions that we need to ask when deciding whether to support the order are whether it has saved lives, whether it will continue to save lives, and whether it helps the terrorists to perpetrate their crimes by offering some perverse justification on the grounds that their rights have been limited. The considerable evidence in the Rowe report and elsewhere suggests that the answers are respectively yes, yes and clearly no. There is no justification for the terrorists to perpetrate their crimes on the basis of the PTA.

The legislation is, in our view, a regrettable necessity, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said last year. That is the world in which we live, unfortunately.

We look forward to the Government's proposals to bring together all security legislation under one Act. That is rather overdue. Clearly, the potential for further well-planned and co-ordinated terrorist violence in Northern Ireland is a significant factor in our decision tonight whether to support the continuance of the PTA. In a few weeks, it will be an extremely significant factor in our consideration of the Emergency Provisions Act. There are other pieces of legislation justified by the threat of terrorism in Northern Ireland. We will save our comments for the proposals, when they are announced.

I hope for three things above all—first, that all security measures are combined in a single piece of legislation. Secondly, I hope that when that legislation comes before both Houses for renewal in future years, it can be amended, so that we are not faced with the all-or-nothing choice before us tonight. Thirdly, I hope that the legislation is not introduced on a wave of hysteria, following widespread revulsion aroused by a particular atrocity. We need to be sober when such serious legislation is introduced, and not act on impulse.

The Rowe report has called at least twice and possibly three times for more staff to be on duty at ports. Although we commend the valiant people who are in the front line against terrorism, we should never imagine that terrorists are not cunning enough to go round the back way. Ports are the back door that needs to be kept locked. I would welcome some comment from the Minister, as it seems to be a recurring failure. I am sure that he would agree that if reductions were motivated purely by Treasury cuts and financial considerations in the short term, those savings could prove to be false economies in the matter of terrorism.

We are concerned about apparent breaches, which have already been mentioned, of the European convention on human rights, to which the Government have laudably committed themselves. Mr. Rowe's annual report this year raises the question whether the new powers incorporated into the PTA as a result of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 breach the European convention on human rights. Whereas the report concludes that other powers are not considered to breach that convention, Mr. Rowe concludes that the new provisions in relation to a police officer's evidence and drawing inferences from silence may lead to breaches—but, admittedly, only in certain circumstances.

On page 11 of the report, Mr. Rowe states: In my view there is a potential breach of Article 6.3.d, which establishes the right to examine witnesses against him"— that is, the defendant.Taken at face value, those words appear to prohibit hearsay evidence. The witness giving adverse evidence should be in court and available for cross-examination.

I was slightly concerned when the Home Secretary said that he was comfortable with a different interpretation from that provided by Mr. Rowe. I am not convinced that he has satisfied those of us who are unhappy about the decisions that have been made in the past on the matter.

For the future, the implication is that a key concern will be to ensure that the process of replacing the existing temporary legislation with permanent legislation does not result in unnecessary powers remaining in operation, and that the proper means for scrutiny of the operation of the powers are in place.

In fairness, we welcome the Government's stated aim for complete normalisation, whereby exceptional powers that do not apply in the rest of the United Kingdom will not apply to Northern Ireland. That will, of course, depend on developments within the Province, but maintaining a consensus among UK parties must be a key element of that.

In that context, I again highlight our continuing concerns about provisions on international elements which were introduced, in a rather Machiavellian fashion, last September when the House was suddenly recalled. We were opposed then, as we are now, to some of the additional powers, and still maintain that the powers that have been introduced to try to control international terrorism go beyond in their reach what may be regarded as liberal.

I am concerned once again that individuals with whom I worked in the past when the Soviet Union was still an entity could have been arrested in the United Kingdom and found guilty of a crime simply for supporting the justifiable aspirations of the emerging democracies, such as Estonia, the Baltic states and others, and trying to stand up to the tyranny under which they lived. It is easy to be tough, but it is important to be fair.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)

I am genuinely perplexed by the example that the hon. Gentleman has just given. I simply ask him to elaborate on it and to try to justify it to those of us who are deeply sceptical about the validity of the analogy.

Mr. Öpik

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the extensive 16-hour debate last September on the matter. I do not want to digress too far from the issue at hand. I merely add one additional sentence. I am saying nothing new. We have had this debate in the past when we highlighted the importance of balancing the requirement to be seen to be just and fair with the reasonable need, which we all support, to tackle international terrorism. I am happy to discuss the matter further, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that in these matters, we have to be scrupulously clear and careful not to undermine the very values that we are attempting to uphold with legislation. In that sense, replacing terrorism with injustice is not an equitable trade. I hope that the Home Secretary will take that seriously when we seek to replace the temporary provisions with more permanent legislation in the future.

Notwithstanding that point, we recognise that this Act is necessary and will continue to be so in the current environment. The best prevention of terrorism act is the act of laying down one's arms for good. It is what we all hope for and what the agreement in Northern Ireland expects. I hope that in 12 months' time, we shall look back at this debate as the last time that the House felt the need to uphold legislation that, when all is said and done, applies to exceptional circumstances in Northern Ireland, which there is some hope that we can now resolve for good.

The Act is no more perfect than human nature and simply serves to remind us that, in the resolution of conflict, our species has some way to go.

11.24 pm

Mr. Ken Maginnis (Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

When the Home Secretary spoke tonight he alluded to the death of Rosemary Nelson and very properly condemned it without reservation. I share that sentiment and believe that all decent people in Northern Ireland do likewise. Whoever Rosemary Nelson was, or whoever any other victim of violence is in Northern Ireland, there is no justification within a western democracy for anyone taking a life to promote a political aspiration.

The society that we live in should not be barbarous, but one in which there is respect for other traditions and for individuals—even those with whom we might strongly disagree. Although I would have disagreed with many of the things with which Rosemary Nelson was associated, she was doing her job as a solicitor and whatever associations she would have had in connection with that job cannot be used, as some people whisper behind their hands, in relation to the sort of life that she led.

On the other hand, the media and those who do not have the courage to address the reality of the situation in Northern Ireland will attempt to lionise Rosemary Nelson, but all that I do on behalf of my party is express my sincere sympathy with her husband, her children and her family. I do so as I would for any other victim of violence in Northern Ireland, whether it be a single victim or a member of a group—one of about 30, depending on whether we count the unborn children who died in the Omagh bomb.

I hope that this is the last time that the PTA is continued. It is intended that new legislation, incorporating the PTA and the emergency provisions Act, will replace it. If that is so, it is appropriate to look forward to the nature of the society for which the new Act will cater. I believe that the one thing that is missing from our approach to emergency legislation is the education of society about the nature of terrorism. So many myths surround the terrorism that we have in the United Kingdom at present that it is difficult to understand what we are trying to achieve. So much is talked about the rights of the individual—by the very people who would deny individuals the right to life—that the rights of society as a whole are often neglected within that debate.

The Home Secretary and this House can legislate as much as they like to prevent terrorism, but, after reading some of today's press and participating in some of the television and radio programmes examining the death of Rosemary Nelson, I believe that terrorism is treated almost as an entertainment. I worry about what we will achieve; old legislation or new legislation, it will not matter.

We have to understand that international terrorism is not a three-stage rocket from North Korea, which the Americans are taking steps to prevent. They are talking about putting in place anti-missile defences. For the next 20 or 30 years, terrorism will mean the nuclear device that is loaded on to a ship and sailed up the Thames and into London docks, or into Boston, or the nuclear device that is placed in the back of a container lorry and driven from eastern Europe to this country, or somewhere else. Unless people appreciate that concept of what terrorism brings to society, all the legislation that we can produce here, and all the debate that can take place, will be for nothing.

I saw a Labour Member shake his head when I spoke of terrorism being a subject of entertainment in the press and on television. We need only examine the propaganda that has been peddled by terrorists in my community—loyalist and republican terrorists—and assess the validity of their terrorism. We need only look at the way in which the exponents and advocates of that terrorism have been welcomed by some Members of this House, and have been supported and buoyed up by them over the past 30 years. They are being buoyed up by Congressmen like Chris Smith and Ben Gillman, chairman of the House international relations committee in Congress.

Ben Gillman is now suggesting that he should conduct an inquiry into the RUC—an inquiry that will coincide with the winding up of the Patten commission, which is looking at the future of the RUC. I have not heard him suggest that he might examine the activities of the Israelis on the Gaza strip. I have heard no Member who is present consider the motivation of Congressman Peter King—a member of the committee—who supported and endorsed the mortaring of Newry police station in which policemen and policewomen, Protestant and Catholic, died. He endorsed that, yet we are prepared to be, as we would say, bird-mouthed about the activities of people who act as advocates for terrorists. It is time that the House, our Government and those with responsibility educated the public about the real threat, and the nature of that threat.

The RUC, which has had to withstand the scourge of terrorism in Northern Ireland for 30 years, is now the organisation against which the most venom and negative propaganda is being launched. There have been scandalous arguments in our weekend papers. The Sunday Times, for instance, carried an allegation by a convicted murderer that one man, dead at the hands of terrorists—Superintendent Harry Breen—had been involved in the promotion of terrorism. I mention that case in particular because I knew Harry Breen. I also knew his brother, the late Winston Breen, who was headmaster of Banbridge academy. I know his family, who live in my constituency, and a better, more Christian family—I am talking about the way in which they lead their lives, not the way in which they preach to others—I have yet to meet. Yet some scoundrel who murdered Catholics can come out, sell, I presume, his story to a paper and demean the memory of someone such as Superintendent Harry Breen. It is a disgrace. It is something that Government after Government have ignored when they have spoken about terrorism and the scourge of terrorism: the rights of those who have the responsibility to stand between the law-abiding community and the terrorist.

The RUC is being accused of collusion. A total of 12,000 men and women serve in the RUC. I am not naive enough to believe that every one of them is the most upright citizen one could meet. Many of them are. Inquiry after inquiry has vindicated them with regard to collusion, yet where are we today? We still hear the allegations and who do they come from?—those who, within minutes of poor Rosemary Nelson's death, were able to come out on to the streets holding their anti-RUC posters; people who are organised to demean the RUC.

It appears to us quite often that no one is prepared to stand up and to defend those in the RUC. If we look at the record, we find that they brought 48 per cent. of loyalist terrorists who committed murder through the courts in my constituency, but were able to bring only 8 per cent. of republican terrorists through the courts for a similar offence. That had to do with the co-operation that those in the RUC received and with the way in which they exercised their responsibilities.

Who colluded in the deaths of 2,200 people who were killed by the IRA? Who colluded in the attacks on my colleagues and me over the years? No one needed to collude in a society where we live together and where the IRA can move freely and attack us. In the same way, there is no—

Mr. Hunter

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maginnis

No. I am over my time. I am not giving way.

No one needs to collude with loyalist terrorists who have exactly the same opportunity as republican terrorists to wreak havoc in our society, so it is time that each and every one of us fulfilled our responsibility to educate our society as to what terrorism can do to our society if we let it go unchecked. That is where we have to look when we introduce not only the legislation that is to be renewed tonight, but new legislation that will incorporate both the PTA and EPA.

11.38 pm

Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield)

I do not intend to trouble the House at any length, but I would not be taking my opportunity if I did not say a few words about the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998, which was introduced last September.

I support the broad thrust of the PTA and the order. It is clear that society needs to be protected from the activities of terrorists. It is equally clear that, in seeking to provide such protection, we sometimes have to introduce, and keep going, orders and legislation which may at times offend against our view of what we would like in an ideal society.

I am bound to say, however, that, last September, when the House considered the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act, I had the very gravest reservations. I was not able to develop my arguments then—perhaps fortunately for my own conscience—because, as I had to organise my father's funeral the following day, I had been released by the Whips. I left the House only after hearing what the Home Secretary had to say about that Bill, and there was enough in what he said to cause me considerable disquiet. Once the House had re-assembled after the recess, I spoke to many colleagues, including plenty of Labour Members, and found that my disquiet was shared.

I simply want to say this about the 1998 Act. It has been suggested that the two provisions with which we are particularly concerned today—a police officer's statement of opinion being sufficient as evidence of membership of a proscribed organisation, and the inferences to be drawn from an accused's failure to mention any material fact that he could reasonably have been expected to mention at the time of his arrest in connection with that—do not offend against the Human Rights Act 1998. I do not know the answer to that. All I can say is that it is a matter which is, fortunately, untested. I also have some rather serious doubts about whether it would pass that test.

Even if that were not the case, it is difficult to imagine—it always seemed to me to be the most extraordinary feature of the two provisions—that anyone could ever be convicted in a case that is brought based on them. If such a prosecution were to be brought, I should be very surprised if a judge, exercising the discretion open to him in the interests of justice, were to allow a conviction to be entered on that basis.

If that is the case—I should say that that is the view of the matter that I took when I considered it last September—I regret very much that, in the immediate aftermath of the atrocity at Omagh, we should have passed legislation which I believe to be hasty and ill-considered.

Let me simply tell the Home Secretary that I am mindful of the fact that, at this stage, it may not be possible to do anything about it. I am equally mindful of the fact that we all have real hopes that, in 12 months' time, we may be able to bury everything connected with this order and with the whole Prevention of Terrorism Act, because the situation will have improved so much. That is certainly my hope. I share the Government's hopes on the issue.

In 12 months' time, if that happy state of affairs has not yet arrived, and if, as I believe will be the case, the two provisions have never been used in the interim—I have very serious doubts that anyone would risk using them—I hope that the Home Secretary will think long and hard about whether they should be renewed. They offend very deeply against fundamental principles of law, fairness and the way in which we deal with evidence in our courts.

I should certainly have had great difficulty—if, as I said, it had not been for my perhaps fortunate absence—in supporting the legislation when it was first passed. I do not believe that it is well directed to serve its purpose, and hope that it will be kept under close review. In 12 months' time, if the provisions of the 1998 Act are found to be unnecessary, but it is necessary to renew the Prevention of Terrorism Act, I hope very much that we shall consider dropping those provisions from it.

11.43 pm

Mr. Straw

With the permission of the House, I should like briefly to respond to the points that have been made in the debate.

I tell the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that, although I do not share his rather apocalyptic view of the provisions that we passed in part I of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998, I have always accepted that they were exceptional measures which I happen to think are proportionate. We shall, of course, keep the matters under review regardless of whether the powers are used in the intervening 12 months. Powers such as those should not be on the statute book and available for use unless they are clearly necessary.

The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) expressed his support for renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, as he and other Conservative Members have done consistently since 1974. I am grateful to him for his support. He also referred generously to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. It is worth remembering that since the troubles began in Northern Ireland in the late 1960s, more than 300 RUC officers have been killed, and many hundreds more have been injured.

My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked about the investigation into the murder of Yvonne Fletcher. I am aware that I have used the same adverb to my hon. Friend several times, but I am afraid that I am going to have to use it again. The inquiries have taken a great deal longer than anticipated, but I understand from the Metropolitan police that they will be concluded shortly. I am afraid that I cannot give an exact time scale.

The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) asked about staffing levels at ports. Paragraph 114 of Mr. Rowe's report says: staffing levels of port officers should not be allowed to fall. However, Mr. Rowe goes on to say: I do not in any fashion assert that staffing levels are too low at any particular place". There has not been a suggestion that staffing levels have been reduced. I understand that the number of port police officers has not reduced in recent years.

The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said that to do justice to the memory of Rosemary Nelson, we should express our sincere sympathy for her husband, children and family—and her friends, I might add. I agree with him on that.

I hope that the renewal order will be passed without a Division. It is widely accepted that the renewal is justified in the circumstances and I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 4th March, be approved.