Bali (Hansard, 15 October 2002)

§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair)
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the bombings in Bali, Indonesia.
Two bombs went off near the Sari club in Kuta, Bali, just after 11 pm Indonesian time on the night of 12 October. At the same time, a bomb exploded in Denpasar, capital of Bali, near the United States consulate, and another at the Philippines consulate in Sulawesi. The Sari club was packed with people, mainly young, enjoying themselves on a Saturday night. The attacks appear to have been timed deliberately to cause the maximum possible injury and loss of life.
First, I would like to express my deep sympathies and condolences to the families who have lost loved ones in this appalling terrorist outrage. The final toll of the dead and injured is unlikely to be confirmed for several weeks, but as of this morning more than 180 people are confirmed dead, with hundreds more injured. Many of those who died were young Australians. Up to 30 British people may have died: nine Britons are confirmed dead, with a further eight bodies yet to be identified and 13 people still missing. Eight have been medically evacuated from Bali; many more received hospital treatment at the scene. We are providing assistance, as we did after 11 September, to the relatives of British victims. That will enable those who wish to travel to Bali to do so, and we will provide help and support to them while they are there.
This was an act of pure wickedness—horrific and brutal attacks that have left hundreds of families here and all around the world in shock and grieving. Last night, the United Nations Security Council condemned the bombings in the strongest terms, calling them a threat to international peace and security. At the weekend, I spoke to Prime Minister Howard and to the Premier of Western Australia to express my condolences to them, and I will speak to President Megawati later. I have also spoken to President Bush. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke at the weekend to his Australian and Indonesian counterparts, and he is discussing the issues with Secretary of State Colin Powell in Washington today. A team of specialist officers from the Metropolitan police service antiterrorist branch has already flown to Bali, and more are on their way. US and Australian experts are also on the scene.
I should like to place on record the Government's gratitude for the help extended by both the Indonesian and Australian authorities to all those from the United Kingdom who have been caught up in these dreadful events.
We had no specific intelligence relating to the attack in Bali. We do not yet know for certain who carried it out, but we do know that there are groups of extremists active in the region, some of which have strong links to al-Qaeda. Those groups have worked with al-Qaeda on attack plans in the past. We know that they have tried before to carry out major terrorist atrocities in the region—for example, in Singapore last December, when a massive attack planned against targets, including the British high commission, was thwarted by the 178 Singaporean authorities. I discussed that with the Prime Minister of Singapore when he visited London in April this year. He told me that had the authorities not discovered these plans, hundreds of people could have died.
The Indonesian authorities have been conscious for some time of the growing threat from extremists in the region. Indonesia is a secular country with a tradition of tolerance and moderate Islam of which Indonesians are rightly proud, but prior to 11 September, and especially afterwards, we identified the south-east Asian region, including Indonesia, as an area with a real and present threat from groups linked to al-Qaeda. The most prominent is Jemaah Islamiyah, which has a network stretching across a number of countries in the region, and which has to be one of the groups under most suspicion for this atrocity. We are urgently considering proscribing it under the Terrorism Act 2000.
Earlier this year, we put in place an enhanced package of counter-terrorism assistance for Indonesia, including specific programmes on intelligence, crisis management and aviation security. We also offered assistance with bomb disposal and bomb scene management training.
In June, I met President Megawati in London to discuss how we could fight terrorism in Indonesia more effectively, and we agreed to expand our existing programme further, drawing on the wide range of expertise in counter-terrorism that Britain can offer. We will do so in close co-operation with the US and Australia, as well as with the Indonesian authorities. We have also set up programmes to help other Governments in the region. In the Philippines, we are training in counter-terrorism, hostage negotiation and police investigations. In Malaysia, we are setting up training by Scotland Yard's anti-terrorism branch and in bomb disposal. We fully support the tripartite counterterrorism agreement signed by Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines earlier this year, designed to combat money laundering, illegal border crossing and the illegal trade in arms.
Of course, since 11 September, here in Britain we have enhanced our intelligence efforts, strengthened protection against rogue aircraft and shipping, and clamped down on sources of terrorist financing. We have passed new anti-terrorist legislation. Internationally, we have put a new UN framework in place, under UK chairmanship, to ensure more effective national and international action against terrorism, and we have increased intelligence co-operation, strengthening existing partnerships and putting in place new ones across the world.
So we have had a fresh reminder, if we needed one, that the war against terrorism is not over. In the past 10 days, there have been attacks in Kuwait and in Yemen. The threat to all people at any time, at any place in the world, is real. In the end, it is not just the families now grieving for their loved ones who suffer, but the people of Indonesia, many of whom already live in poverty, who will have to face the devastating economic consequences of this attack for their country, as those bombs, and the fanatics who use them, do not discriminate between young and old, east and west, black and white, Christian and Muslim. They will kill anyone of any race, creed or colour. They respect no frontiers. They have no inhibitions in murdering the innocent—indeed they rejoice in it. Because of the way 179 they work, in small cells of fanatics, and because their victims are the most vulnerable—people in a pub or a cafe, on a street or on holiday—discovering where and how they might strike next is hard. But the message we send out, and should send out, is once again the same—one of total defiance, of determination in the face of this evil to prosecute the fight against them the world over, until in time they are defeated: defeated, of course by intelligence, by police and even military action, but defeated also in the triumph of our values of tolerance, freedom and the rule of law over those of terror designed to produce bloodshed, fear and hatred.
Some say that we should fight terrorism alone, and that issues to do with weapons of mass destruction are a distraction. I reject that entirely. Both, though different in means, are the same in nature. Both are the new threats facing the post- cold war world. Both are threats from people or states who do not care about human life, who have no compunction about killing the innocent. Both represent the extreme replacing the rational, the fanatic driving out moderation. Both are intent not on letting people live in peace with each other, celebrate our diversity, and work out our differences in an orderly way, but on producing such chaos and disorder that out of it comes a world in which religions and nations and peoples fight each other for supremacy. That is the true measure of what is at stake. The war on terrorism is indeed a war, but of a different sort to the ones we are used to. Its outcome, however, is as important as any we have fought before.

§ Mr. lain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green)
May I start by thanking the Prime Minister for his statement? I should like to join him in welcoming the swift action and help given by the Foreign Office to support the many British families who have lost loved ones in Bali over the weekend. Our thoughts and prayers are with them, as they are with all the victims' families.
If 11 September was a nightmare, the atrocity in Bali marks the moment when the world woke up to the fact that that nightmare had become a living reality. Today, more than 180 people lie dead—up to 30 Britons among them—and hundreds more are injured. They were backpackers and holidaymakers, couples on honeymoon and tourist workers—innocents in a self-styled tropical paradise who were killed by an unspeakable evil that we must face up to. Terrorism is a cancer and it must be rooted out wherever and whenever we find it. So I welcome the assistance that the United Kingdom is lending to the Australian and Indonesian authorities in their search for those responsible for the Kuta beach bombing and in their efforts to bring those people to justice.
I hope that everybody will remember that this is the second largest terrorist atrocity committed against British people—the first being the World Trade Centre. In a little over a year, more than 150 British citizens have died in those two incidents—so this is our struggle too, wherever the incidents, at home or beyond our shores. I am therefore pleased that the Prime Minister has confirmed that this latest attack has stiffened our resolve to tackle terrorism around the world.
A great deal has been done since 11 September to deal with global terrorism, even though some claim otherwise. Much of it—I hope that people will 180 understand—necessarily has been behind the scenes. We know the benefits of international co-operation from working with countries such as Singapore and Malaysia, where recent planned terrorist attacks have been foiled with the help of UK and American intelligence. It is also worth noting that, as I understand it, the Saudi authorities have in the past couple of hours thwarted yet another attempt to hijack an airliner. So there have been successes; the events of the past weekend, however, show just how much work there is still left to do.
For some time, Indonesia has been warned by its neighbours and by the United States about the activities of terrorist cells on its soil. There were 30 bombings in Indonesia last year and an attempted attack on the US embassy in Jakarta last month. I therefore ask the Prime Minister why Jemaah Islamiyah—the group implicated in that attack—was not placed on any list of foreign terrorist organisations published by the US State Department, the European Union or the UK Government. He talked about dealing with that group, so why is he using the phrase that he is "only considering" proscribing it? Does he still lack the evidence? What links, if any, are there between that group and any organisations in the UK? Are there any provable links or any suspicion of which he is aware?
The Prime Minister has held talks with President Megawati. What steps are we taking to ensure that Indonesia deals with militant Islamic groups as effectively as its neighbours such as Singapore and Malaysia? He said that he had received no specific information about an attack in Bali, but I am aware that on Thursday the US State Department issued a general warning that all American citizens should stay away from venues such as nightclubs in certain countries. Was the intelligence that was available to the State Department when it issued that warning also available to us?
The need to root out terrorist groups is as urgent as the need to confront Saddam Hussein. I agree with the Prime Minister that there should be no doubt that it cannot be a question of either/or. I agree with him that those who say—there have been some—that we must choose between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction are offering a false choice. Bali cannot be used as a pretext for letting Saddam off the hook. Surely the duty of any British Government is to protect British citizens against all threats—not merely to give them a false choice and present them with one threat. On the contrary. just as 11 September did, this attack shows what happens when the world fails to respond to threats as they arise, giving clear signals about further and future attacks.
The war against terrorism and our determination to disarm Iraq must surely proceed in parallel. However, the British people need complete reassurance that we are capable now of doing both. Will the Prime Minister let us all know that we will make the necessary intelligence capability, manpower and equipment available, and that nothing will stand in the way of that, regardless of implications for future financial resources?
Saturday's tragic events have shown that we must be able to fight a long-term conventional war against global terrorism, even as we prepare for another form of war against Iraq. Resources must be matched to meet the threats that we face. Without that resolve, there can 181 be no true and lasting peace for Britain. In our defence, we must surely steel ourselves for the fact that this is now a struggle not just for a few people in distant lands, but for all of us to defend our civilised values against those who would tear them down and return us to a new dark age.

§ The Prime Minister
I shall respond reasonably briefly, as I obviously agree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman said. On some of the specific points, of course it is right that many attempted terrorist acts have been foiled, which is to the great credit of those who succeeded in doing so. The trouble is that the terrorists need succeed only once; that is the problem that we face.
The reason there has been hesitation in proscribing the particular organisation is indeed a lack of proof of whether it has been involved, but it is the most obvious suspect for the latest atrocity. We are considering it precisely for that reason, and we need to assess the evidence carefully. It is right to say, however, that we are aware of no connection with any group in this country.
In relation to warnings that have been given, there are two difficulties. The first is that there were no specific warnings of which I am aware in relation to the attack in Bali. What there have been, of course, are specific warnings about the potential for attacks in Indonesia. Indeed, last month the Americans and ourselves acted to protect our high commissions in Jakarta precisely because of worries about potential terrorist threats.
The difficulty—this is the second point—is that intelligence of an unspecific nature flows across our desks all the time. It is very difficult to work out what we must focus on and deal with, and what is so broad that we cannot deal with it. That is why we must take action not just on the intelligence front, but in trying to work out those groups' sources of weapons and bombs, how they are financed, the types of covert activity that give them the means to carry out such attacks, and where their sympathisers are in various parts of the world. All that must be part of how we act.
I emphasise, as I said right after 11 September and have said constantly since then, that that will take a significant time. We have dealt to a large extent with the al-Qaeda terrorist network in Afghanistan, but their cells remain in different parts of the world and we must go after them in each part of the world. We have discussed the matter a great deal with Indonesia, we have offered what help we can, and I know that the Americans and the Australians have done the same. The reason I had the meeting with President Megawati in London in June was to see what more we can do. We will now be looking further at what we can do.
Finally, in relation to intelligence capability, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that the intelligence services will have the resources that they need to do the job that we need them to do.

§ Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Inverness, West)
I entirely associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with the proper expressions of sympathy in the House this afternoon. All of us watching those awful television pictures over the past few days, particularly of the relatives making their way to Bali and trying desperately to find some information about their missing loved ones, will not have failed to realise the utter horror of what has taken place and its global unacceptability.
182 Does the Prime Minister agree that, in the wake of the tragedy, the international community must take stock of the campaign against terrorism? The new intelligence co-operation to which he referred this afternoon is obviously welcome, as is the deployment of forces to Indonesia and to the region. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that in giving support to Indonesia, it is probably worth bearing in mind the fact that we want to keep the focus of that support on civilian forces and the police, rather than on the military, because there is at least the possibility of links between the army and other Islamic terrorists?
Are the Government addressing that issue in the course of their dealings with the Indonesian authorities? Obviously, they must be given every encouragement to deter future acts of terrorism, but is not one of the lessons of this outrage that we are not facing a single threat from a single enemy in a single place, and that the complex roots of terrorism mean, as the American writer, Flannery O'Connor, once put it, that The terrorist seeks to wash an impure world clean with the blood of innocent victims"? Do not we need, therefore, to tackle not only the war on terrorism, as the President and the Prime Minister call it, but the other global factors that give rise to the causes of terrorism—not least, for example, poverty? Should not we again take this opportunity to reassure the law-abiding, peace-loving Muslim community both in our country and abroad that our campaign is not against them, but against the extremists who pervert their religion and principles?
Does the Prime Minister agree with former President Clinton that our most pressing security challenge is to finish the job against al-Qaeda"? Does he share the anxiety expressed by European Union Commissioner Chris Patten, who said that he hopes that the efforts against Iraq do not distract us from the need for further efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan and against al-Qaeda itself?
Finally, is it the Prime Minister's assessment that, if there were a war against Iraq, it would increase or decrease the likelihood of further international terrorist incidents of the type that we have just seen?

§ The Prime Minister
Let me emphasise that we will offer the relatives of those who have died in this terrorist outrage all the help that we can. When they are facing a very difficult and uncertain time and are travelling to a faraway country, we must ensure that we provide absolutely every form of assistance that we can, and we will do so. Essentially, we are providing exactly the same help as we provided for relatives in the aftermath of 11 September.
In respect of Indonesia, we will work with whatever part of the Government we can and whatever forces there are in Indonesia to try to help them combat this terrorism. The right hon. Gentleman will know that I have argued long and hard—and I continue to do so—for a broader international agenda that deals with some of the issues of poverty and development in the world. However, it is important at this point and on this day in particular to make one thing clear: the terrorists carrying out these appalling acts are doing terrible damage to Muslims the world over and are killing many 183 innocent Muslims. As for poverty, quite apart from the terrible loss of life in Indonesia, we can only reflect on how much poverty will be caused by the destruction of the tourism industry, certainly for the near future in Bali and possibly beyond. The situation is therefore very serious for the poorest people in Indonesia. We know from the way in which al-Qaeda operates that the people involved are not necessarily poor at all; they are often extremely well funded, but have a particular type of fanaticism that I think we must confront.
As for the issue of weapons of mass destruction or Iraq, I shall not repeat what I have already said, but I refer the right hon. Gentleman to what the Danish Prime Minister, the President of the European Union, said a moment ago in our press conference. He said that both the issues were threats and had to be tackled, and that we should show the same firmness of will in respect of both.

§ Mr. Kevan Jones (North Durham)
Will my right hon. Friend share in the sympathy for the family and friends of Mr. Ian Findley of my constituency? He was one of those who tragically lost their lives in Bali. I want to put on record my thanks and those of the family for the support that they have received from the Foreign Office. At such a difficult time for them, will my right hon. Friend give them at least the comfort that should they need financial support to return Ian's body to the United Kingdom, it will be forthcoming?

§ The Prime Minister
I join my hon. Friend in sending deep sympathy and condolences to Mr. Findley's family. I assure him and them that we shall give every assistance in returning his body to this country for a proper funeral. Mr. Findley's family are among many who, unfortunately, are grieving, and we shall do everything that we can to help them, as we did after 11 September.

§ Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury)
Will the Prime Minister suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should hold discussions with the insurance industry, for which he has overall responsibility, about holiday insurance? Many people take out no insurance; more take out insurance that is almost useless, and some take out expensive insurance and find that the exclusions are burdensome. That will have a huge impact on not only the British insurance industry but tourism, on which so many poor people in the world depend.

§ The Prime Minister
I am not sure whether there is an easy answer to such questions, but I shall raise with the Chancellor the issues that the hon. Gentleman mentions.

§ Mr. Win Griffiths (Bridgend)
At the beginning of August, I led an inter-faith delegation from Parliament to Indonesia under the auspices of the Foreign Office. We specifically examined some of the problems that relate to Muslim-Christian conflict, but we also considered the wider scene. We must remember that Indonesia is a three-year-old, fledgling democracy. It is throwing off a corrupt and repressive regime and trying to establish a tolerant and just society while also dealing 184 with unorthodox Islamic extremists. In addition to any help in finding the barbaric perpetrators of the bomb massacre in Bali, will my right hon. Friend ensure that our Government continue with the much-appreciated programmes of help and support to develop good governance, justice and inter-faith harmony, especially in places such as central Sulawesi and Maluku, where serious violence has occurred? The Bali massacre has tragically thrown all that into the spotlight.

§ The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right. Indonesia has escaped military rule and, as he said, is a fledgling democracy. It is tragic if its democratic stability faces another threat. We shall continue with our programmes to develop good governance. We specifically discussed inter-faith dialogue when I met the President of Indonesia in June. It is an important, long-term part of the solution.

§ Mr. Michael Portillo (Kensington and Chelsea)
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made a powerful point when he drew attention to the number of Britons who have been killed in the incident and others. However, the specific incident that we are discussing constituted a day of infamy especially for Australia; it is Australia's equivalent of 11 September. Will the Prime Minister be as supportive of Australia in the coming months as he rightly was of the United States after 11 September?
I have heard some people in this country argue that if Britain remained apart from the war against terrorism and from that against weapons of mass destruction, we might somehow be spared the aggression of terrorists. Does not the incident underline what many of us knew: no one will be spared in the war of aggression by terrorists, and the only answer is therefore for the world community to join the fight against terrorism?

§ The Prime Minister
I agree entirely. On the first point, I phoned Prime Minister John Howard immediately after the incident and we not only expressed our condolences but discussed what we could to do to help. I also spoke to the Premier of Western Australia because many victims came from there. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that we will do all that we can to support Australia at this very difficult time. Australians realise, as do the British, that, in the end, there is no secure sanctuary from international terrorism, and that the only option available to us that we can possibly take with our heads held high is to be part of the coalition against international terrorism. Australia has played a magnificent part in that over the past year or so, and we must continue to be with them in that fight.

§ Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax)
May I join the Prime Minister in condemning the outrageous and barbaric act perpetrated against the young people in Bali and offer my sympathy to those left behind? In the light of this latest outrage, however, should we not be targeting all our resources and energies on fighting terrorism, rather than starting another war in the middle east? Surely the Prime Minister will agree that to start such a war would fan the flames of fundamentalism across the whole area and make matters much worse. Our priorities must be to 185 get the weapons inspectors back and to concentrate on getting rid of al-Qaeda. That is the way in which to protect all our citizens.

§ The Prime Minister
Obviously, my hon. Friend and I will not agree on all aspects of the Iraq issue, but I do agree with what she said a moment ago about our priority being to ensure that we root out terrorism wherever it is, and, through the United Nations, to achieve the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction through a proper inspections regime. That is what we are working towards. As I said in my statement, however, this is not an either/or, and we really need to tackle both these issues, as both are threats to the stability and order of the world.

§ Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle)
While everybody utterly deplores this wicked, cruel act of terrorism, I would like to pursue a point made by the Leader of the Liberal Democratic party, which is that it will not be sufficient for us to continue to denounce terrorism in general terms. If we are really going to grapple with the problem, we must of course use military and intelligence means, but we must also tackle its sources. They are not simply religious ones, and these acts are not organised solely by one small terrorist group. After the 1997 Asian financial crisis, Indonesia was left to wallow in chaos without the international financial organisations making any serious attempt to help, while the rest of the world humiliated Indonesia in East Timor. In those circumstances—in a country of 200 million people with a Government who are not in effective control—it is not surprising that chaos is breaking out all over that vast archipelago, and this may be only the first of many disasters.

§ The Prime Minister
I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on East Timor; I think that the Government took a brave and correct decision in what they did there. I do not disagree that we need a broad agenda at an international level; indeed,. I have often argued for that. At this moment, however, we must be careful of saying, in effect, that these people are carrying out these attacks because of the real problems of poverty or underdevelopment in Indonesia. They are not. They are fanatics and extremists whose very acts will have brought more poverty and more underdevelopment to Indonesia. I do not disagree that it is important for the international community to give Indonesia the chance to get on its feet economically. Indeed, this country has been trying to do so; that was another thing that we discussed with the Indonesian President in June. At this moment, however, we should not mix our messages about what has happened. It is wrong and wicked, and has nothing to do with advancing any cause that any of us recognise as justified.

§ Mr. Derek Foster (Bishop Auckland)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the horrific events of the past few days underline the fact that the fight against international terrorism must be our topmost priority? That fight depends on the broad-based coalition that he and President Bush put together after 11 September. Is it not, therefore, all the more important that my right hon. Friend get it across to President Bush that any military 186 conflict outside the authority of the United Nations would fracture that coalition and undermine the fight against terrorism?

§ The Prime Minister
We do want to ensure that we have the broadest possible coalition, not just in the fight against terrorism but in dealing with weapons of mass destruction. That is what we are working for and, as my right hon. Friend rightly implies, it is important that we maximise international support. I have always said, however, that it is important that the coalition addresses both issues. As President Bush's speech the other day in Cincinnati indicated, the United States has a real desire to ensure that we have the broadest possible coalition to deal with those issues, because they are both threats to the world. Weapons of mass destruction are a real threat. In my first statement to the House on the events of 11 September, on 14 September, I specifically linked the two issues together, and I continue to do so. They are both threats of the same nature, although different in means. I agree that the best way to deal with them is on the basis of the broadest possible international support.

§ Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)
I associate the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru with the sympathy and condolences expressed to those who have been injured and bereaved in this atrocity. I have listened carefully to the Prime Minister, but I wonder how it could be sensible to fight a war on two fronts if any preoccupation with a military campaign in Iraq were to detract, disrupt, deflect or in any way undermine the solidarity of the international coalition against terrorism.

§ The Prime Minister
We have to tackle the danger, whatever its source. If the danger comes from more than one source, we have to tackle it in more than one way. It is important to recognise that both issues are threats, and I shall explain why they are linked. They are linked because the same type of fanaticism and extremism is driving both threats. They may not be directly linked at this moment, in the sense that weapons of mass destruction are in the hands of the terrorists, but I ask the House to consider whether if we allow unstable states—with oppressive and dictatorial regimes—to develop weapons of mass destruction and also allow the terrorist groups to operate, we can be confident that the two threats will not at some point come together. I think that that is a real possibility, which is why it is false and—I say this respectfully—dangerous to suggest that we somehow have a choice between dealing with the threat of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons in the hands of unstable countries and dealing with international terrorism. They are of the same nature and, unless we tackle both, they could come together at some point in a horrific way.

§ Mr. Chris Smith (Islington, South and Finsbury)
Does not this tragedy all too graphically remind us of the absolute importance of the international coalition against terrorism, especially the need to sustain and enhance that coalition across the countries and Governments of the Muslim world? Therefore, is it not important that we do nothing by unilateral decision or 187 action, outside the institutions of the international community, that might diminish or damage that central purpose of combating terrorism?

§ The Prime Minister
Yes, it is important that we do not do anything that damages the international coalition against terrorism. As my right hon. Friend will accept, in many ways it is Muslim countries that have most to fear from this terrorism, but it is also important to deal with the issue of weapons of mass destruction. I have been trying to get us to deal with that also on a broad basis of international support, and I am confident that in the end we will get that support. Our use of the international coalition must allow us to tackle and deal with those problems, not be a means to avoid dealing with them.

§ Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury)
The Prime Minister knows the support that exists among Conservative Members for his sentiments and for the difficult course that he has set. However, will he deal with the very real deficiencies hampering our armed forces in the challenge that they face? The regular Army shrank again last year, there are 7,000 personnel unfit for military duty, reserves are at an all-time low and another RAF squadron has closed because of a lack of pilots. I urge the Prime Minister to accept that, in the difficult time ahead, we owe it to our armed forces to tackle those problems.

§ The Prime Minister
There are, and always will be, matters that need to be addressed in respect of our armed forces. However, let me point out that defence spending is now rising, after falling in real terms for many years. We take very seriously matters that arise in connection with our armed forces' equipment or capability, but their commitment and capability are renowned and well regarded the world over.

§ Ross Cranston (Dudley, North)
As someone with one foot in this country and the other in Australia, may I associate myself especially with the remarks that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made about the victims of the tragedy, and their relatives and friends?
I am concerned about the moneys flowing to terrorists. Earlier this year, the UN convention on the suppression of the financing of terrorism came into force. All countries are obliged to take action, as this country has done. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the actions taken by other countries?

§ The Prime Minister
The truthful answer is that those actions have been mixed. There have been real successes in the action taken against money laundering, and there is real evidence that that activity is being disrupted. However, it is worth pointing out that there is always a tremendous will to take action in the immediate aftermath of very serious incidents. We in this country have introduced legislation but, surprising as it may seem, people's memories fade in a short space of time. Subsequently, there are many arguments about whether action should be taken against money laundering or against terrorist groups, and so on. Once again, we have been reminded that we need to take action at a national and an international level.
188 The honest answer to my hon. and learned Friend is that real progress is being made. However, I agree, as his question implied, that a lot more could be done.

§ Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough)
Clearly, I do not know whether the estates of any of those who met untimely deaths in Bali this week or in the United States last year are liable to inheritance tax, but will the Prime Minister and the Chancellor consider exempting any estate that is so liable?

§ The Prime Minister
I simply do not know the answer to that. I shall look into the matter and write to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

§ Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby)
The outrageous atrocity against innocent people carried out on Saturday night should help to concentrate our minds. Two things are essential: we must maintain the coalition that involves the US, the UK, Russia and the Muslim countries in an alliance against international terrorism, and we must not give any comfort to al-Qaeda and the international terrorists. If we were to take military action in the light of recent events involving Iraq, does my right hon. Friend agree that we would be acting as a recruiting sergeant for the international terrorists whom we must defeat?

§ The Prime Minister
Again, let me say that it is important that we maintain the international coalition, but we should not underestimate the knowledge among Arab and Muslim countries of the dangers posed by weapons of mass destruction. After all, the two countries that have suffered most from Saddam are Iran and Kuwait. However, I agree with what my hon. Friend said. I make the point again that it is important that we have the broadest possible international coalition, but I think that we can, and should, deal with both issues.

§ Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)
In recent years, I have spoken in the House about the often very violent attacks suffered by minority communities in Indonesia, to which the military appears to have turned a blind eye. Those attacks have received very little publicity because local people rather than Europeans were involved. Is the Prime Minister worried about the profound sense of alienation from western values that exists in many Muslim societies? That alienation often reaches right to the top of society.
Given the Prime Minister's experience with Northern Ireland, does he agree that we must root out, through military and intelligence means, both terrorism and its causes? In other words, will he be—to coin a phrase—tough on terrorism, and tough on the causes of terrorism?

§ The Prime Minister
I agree, certainly, that we should not simply try to deal with this by means of intelligence. I also agree that there is a lot of anti-west feeling in many parts of the Arab and Muslim world—there is no point in denying that. Our response must surely be twofold. First, we must deal with issues where a reasonable point is being made. Many people feel, and have felt on many occasions, that it is important to show the same rigorous concern for dealing with all the issues of conflict around 189 the world as we have shown, for example, in the coalition against terrorism. However, we must also confront extremism and fundamentalism where they effectively mean that people are, as they were in Afghanistan, forced to live in a state of abject repression or where they try to justify terrorism. I do not believe that those things genuinely have anything to do with the true voice of Islam, and I think that the majority of Muslims feel the same.

§ Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough)
Is not the price of freedom eternal vigilance, and is not the fact that so many young lives have been lost a reminder of that dire statement?
The House will welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that the United Nations Security Council has passed a further resolution condemning the bombings and also that there is co-operation with in the framework of the United Nations to attack global outreach terrorism. However, will he confirm that in the association with Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom in Bali, there can be co-operation outside the United Nations as well as within it? Finally, will he tell the House where we are with the United Nations resolution on Iraq?

§ The Prime Minister
On my hon. Friend's latter point, we are pursuing it and I hope and believe that we can achieve a consensus on it. On his first point, he is right that we must work with the authorities in Indonesia as well as the Australians and Americans to do everything that we can to counter the terrorist threat. I can assure him that we are doing that.

§ Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)
On behalf of the Unionist Members and the great majority of the people of Northern Ireland, may I express sympathy to those in Australia and in other parts of the world who have suffered in this appalling tragedy? Regrettably, there has been a sense of denial at various levels. In May this year, I asked in the House about links with al-Qaeda. At the time, there was no knowledge of any, but some of us were aware of them. When we were in Indonesia, we discovered that that was the name that they dared not speak. In other words, they were aware of the issue but not prepared to face it.
Dropping the word "international" from terrorism is a blessing, because we must realise that terrorism is homespun as well as international. Therefore, we join the Prime Minister in his leadership to deal with terrorism whence it comes. Regrettably, for example, in Northern Ireland, in the fight against organised crime, there seem to be delays between the Home Office and the Northern Ireland Office in putting into action some of the things that are needed and were agreed to earlier.
The statement from the Security Council on terrorism is to be welcomed. I trust that it will be equally united not only in putting forward a statement but in recommending action to deal with terrorism, whether it is in the form of weapons of mass destruction or the car bombs that plague our communities. We will back it.

§ The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support on the statement. What he says is right: we must deal with this issue whatever its source and origin. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will make a statement on Northern Ireland shortly.