Sitting of 4 October 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock, notice having been given by Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Earlier meeting of the House in certain circumstances).
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS

  Coalition against International Terrorism
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Prime Minister, I have a short statement to make about security. In the light of recent events, security measures have been stepped up. Access to the Palace, both on foot and by vehicle, will be more strictly controlled. A primary element of this process will be the photographic identity pass, which Members should carry at all times and produce on request. Vehicles will be subject to search and Members are advised to allow sufficient time for their journeys, bearing in mind the likely delays on arrival at the House.
  As Members may have observed, arrangements are in place for an armed response to an incident or intrusion should this prove necessary. This is in addition to the Palace of Westminster security force. Our own officers will continue their duties to control access to assist Members and visitors.
  The House will understand that I cannot go into further detail, and I am not prepared to take questions about our security arrangements. I am sure that Members will give the security force their full support and co-operation.
  9.35 am
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for recalling Parliament on a second occasion so that the House can consider developments since we last met. Then the scale of the 11 September tragedy was still unclear. Even today we do not yet know the precise numbers of those feared dead, but a bleak picture has emerged: there are up to 7,000 victims, including many British victims and others from 70 different countries. Many were Muslims. It cannot be said too often: this atrocity appalled decent Muslims everywhere and is wholly contrary to the proper teaching of Islam; and we condemn unreservedly also racist attacks on British Muslims here, most recently at an Edinburgh mosque. These acts are without any justification whatever and the full force of the law will be used against those who do them.
  I pay tribute again to all those in America who have been involved in dealing with the human consequences of the attacks—the rescue services and medical workers who worked tirelessly and with devotion in the most harrowing conditions imaginable. I pay tribute also to our own consular staff in New York and London and to the family counsellors and Metropolitan police officers who have supported relatives of the British victims; and above all, I pay tribute to the relatives themselves. Those I met in
  672
  New York, still uncertain finally of the fate of their loved ones, bore their grief with immense dignity, which deserves the admiration of us all.
  Since 11 September, intensive efforts have taken place here and elsewhere to investigate these attacks and to determine who is responsible. Our findings have been shared and co-ordinated with those of our allies and they are clear. They are: first, that it was Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda, the terrorist network which he heads, that planned and carried out the atrocities on 11 September; secondly, that Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda were able to commit these atrocities because of their close alliance with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, which allows them to operate with impunity in pursuing their terrorist activity.
  I will later today put in the Library a document detailing the basis for our conclusions. The document covers the history of Osama bin Laden, his relations with the Taliban, what we know of the acts of terror that he has committed and some of what we know in respect of 11 September. I enter a major caveat, however: much of the evidence that we have is intelligence and highly sensitive. It is not possible without compromising people or security to release precise details and fresh information that is daily coming in, but I hope that the House will find it useful at least as an interim assessment. The Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Liberal Democrats have seen the full basis for the document on Privy Council terms. For myself and all other Ministers who have studied the full information, we have absolutely no doubt that bin Laden and his network were responsible for the attacks on 11 September. That was also the unanimous view of the NATO members who were taken through the full facts on 2 October. Much more of the evidence in respect of earlier atrocities can be released in greater detail since it is already subject to court proceedings, and this in itself is powerful.
  Indeed, there is nothing hidden about bin Laden's agenda. He openly espouses the language of terror; has described terrorising Americans as
  "a religious and logical obligation";
  and in February 1998 signed a fatwa stating that
  "the killing of Americans and their civilian and military allies is a religious duty."
  As our document shows, he has been responsible for a number of terrorist outrages over the past decade: the attack in 1993 on US military personnel serving in Somalia, 18 of whom were killed; in 1998, the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in which 224 people were killed and more than 4,500 injured; attempted bombings in Jordan and Los Angeles at the turn of the millennium, thankfully thwarted; and the attack on the USS Cole nearly a year ago which left 17 crew members killed and 40 injured.
  The attacks on 11 September bear all the hallmarks of a bin Laden operation: meticulous long-term planning; a desire to inflict mass casualties; a total disregard for civilian lives, including those of Muslims; multiple simultaneous attacks; and the use of suicide attackers.
  I can now confirm that of the 19 hijackers identified from the passenger lists of the four planes hijacked in America on 11 September, at least three have already been positively identified as known associates of bin Laden, with a track record in his camps and organisation. The

  673
  others are being investigated still. Of the three, one has also been identified as playing key roles in both the east African embassy attacks and the USS Cole attack.
  Since the attacks, we have obtained the following intelligence: shortly before 11 September, bin Laden told associates that he had a major operation against America under preparation; a range of people were warned to return to Afghanistan because of action on or around 11 September; and most important, one of bin Laden's closest lieutenants has said clearly that he helped with the planning of the 11 September attacks, and has admitted the involvement of the al-Qaeda organisation. There is other intelligence which we cannot disclose of an even more direct nature indicating guilt.
  The closeness of bin Laden's relationship with the Taliban is also plain. He provides them with troops, arms and money to fight the Northern Alliance. He is closely involved with their military training, planning and operations. He has representatives in their military command structure. Forces under the control of bin Laden have fought alongside the Taliban in the civil war in Afghanistan.
  For their part, the Taliban regime have provided bin Laden with a safe haven within which to operate, and allowed him to establish terrorist training camps. They jointly exploit the Afghan drugs trade. In return for active al-Qaeda support, the Taliban allow al-Qaeda to operate freely, including planning, training and preparing for terrorist activity. In addition, they provide security for the stockpiles of drugs.
  In the face of this evidence, our immediate objectives are clear. We must bring bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders to justice and eliminate the terrorist threat that they pose, and we must ensure that Afghanistan ceases to harbour and sustain international terrorism. If the Taliban regime will not comply with that objective, we must bring about change in that regime to ensure that Afghanistan's links to international terrorism are broken.
  Since the House last met, we have been working tirelessly and ceaselessly on the diplomatic, humanitarian and military fronts. I can confirm that we have had initial discussions with the United States about a range of military capabilities with which Britain can help and have already responded positively. We will consider carefully any further requests and keep the House informed, as appropriate, about such requests. For obvious reasons I cannot disclose the exact nature of our discussions, but I am fully satisfied that they are consistent with our shared objectives.
  I believe that the humanitarian coalition to help the people of Afghanistan is as vital as the military action itself. Afghanistan was, of course, in the grip of a humanitarian crisis even before the events of 11 September. Four years of drought, on top of more than two decades of conflict, have forced millions of people to leave the country, and have left millions more dependent on international humanitarian aid.
  Last week the United Nations launched an appeal for $584 million to meet the needs of vulnerable people in and around Afghanistan. The appeal covers the next six months. The international community has already pledged sufficient funds to meet the most immediate needs. The British Government have contributed £25 million, nearly
  674
  all of which has already been allocated to UN and other agencies. We have also made available a further £11 million for support for the poorest communities in Pakistan, especially those most directly affected by the influx of refugees. I know that President Bush will shortly announce details of a major US programme of aid.
  I, along with other Ministers, have been in detailed consultation with the United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Ruud Lubbers, and other leaders. Kofi Annan has now appointed Lakhdar Brahimi to be his high-level co-ordinator for the humanitarian effort in and around Afghanistan. We will give Mr. Brahimi all the support that we can, to help ensure that the UN and the whole international community come together to meet the humanitarian challenge.
  I can tell the House that action is already in hand to cope with additional outflows of refugees. UNHCR is working with the Governments of the region to identify sites for additional refugee camps. The first UNHCR flight of relief supplies, including tents donated by the British Government, arrived in Iran yesterday. A second flight will depart at the end of this week, carrying more tents, plastic sheeting, tarpaulins and other materials, so that we can provide essential shelter for refugees.
  We are also stepping up the effort to get food into Afghanistan before the winter snows begin. A UNICEF convoy carrying blankets and other supplies left Peshawar for Kabul on Tuesday. A World Food Programme convoy carrying more than 200 tonnes of wheat arrived in Kabul on Monday. Further convoys have left for Afghanistan from Pakistan and Turkmenistan.
  We will do whatever we can to minimise the suffering of the Afghan people as a result of the conflict, and we commit ourselves to work with them afterwards, inside and outside Afghanistan, to ensure a better, more peaceful future, free from the repression and dictatorship that are their present existence.
  On the diplomatic front, over the past three weeks the Foreign Secretary and I and other Ministers have been in intensive contact with foreign leaders from every part of the world. In addition, the Foreign Secretary has visited the middle east and Iran. I have visited Berlin, Paris and Washington for consultations with Chancellor SchrÕder, President Chirac and President Bush, respectively. Later today I will travel to Moscow to meet President Putin.
  What we have encountered is an unprecedented level of solidarity and commitment to work together against terrorism. This is a commitment that spans all continents, cultures, and religions, reinforced by attacks like the one on the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly in Srinagar which killed more than 30 innocent people. We have already made good progress in taking forward an international agenda. Last week the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 1373. That makes it mandatory for all states to prevent and suppress terrorist financing and requires the denial of safe haven to those who finance, plan, support or commit terrorist acts.
  The European Union, too, has taken firm action. Transport, Interior, Finance and Foreign Ministers have all met to concert an ambitious and effective European response: enhancing police co-operation; speeding up extradition; putting an end to the funding of terrorism; and strengthening air security.

  675
  We are also looking at our national legislation. In the next few weeks, the Home Secretary intends to introduce a package of legislation to supplement existing legal powers in a number of areas. It will be a carefully appraised set of measures—tough, but balanced and proportionate to the risk that we face. It will cover the funding of terrorism. It will increase our ability to exclude and remove those whom we suspect of terrorism and who are seeking to abuse our asylum procedures. It will widen the law on incitement to include religious hatred. We will bring forward a Bill to modernise our extradition law. That will not be a knee-jerk reaction, but I emphasise that we need to strengthen our laws so that, even if necessary only in a small number of cases, we have the means to protect our citizens' liberty and our national security.
  We have also ensured, in so far as is possible, that every reasonable measure of internal security is being undertaken. We have in place a series of contingency plans, governing all forms of terrorism. These plans are continually reviewed and tested regularly and at all levels. In addition, we continue to monitor carefully developments in the British and international economy. Certain sectors in Britain and around the world have inevitably been seriously affected, though I repeat that the fundamentals of all the major economies, including our own, remain strong. The reduction of risk from terrorist mass action is important also to economic confidence, as 11 September shows, so there is every incentive in that respect also to close down the bin Laden network.
  Three weeks on from the most appalling act of terrorism that the world has ever witnessed, the coalition is strong, military plans are robust, the humanitarian plans are falling into place and the evidence against bin Laden and his network is overwhelming.
  The Afghan people are not our enemy, for they have our sympathy and they will have our support. Our enemy is Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network, who were responsible for the events of 11 September. The Taliban regime must yield them up or become our enemy also. We will not act for revenge. We will act because we need to for the protection of our people and our way of life, including confidence in our economy. The threat posed by bin Laden and his terrorism must be eliminated. We act for justice. We act with world opinion behind us and we have an absolute determination to see justice done and this evil of mass international terrorism confronted and defeated.
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The Opposition are grateful to the Prime Minister for his statement. He is correct to condemn attacks on British Muslims wherever they take place, and on their places of worship. I join fully in supporting him in that statement. Furthermore, our support should also be stated for those who have lost loved ones, as the Prime Minister said. We watched their dignity in their suffering and were not only impressed but took it as a lesson to us all. I hope that it is one we will never lose.
  It is just over three weeks since the terrible events of 11 September in New York and Washington. Although the initial shock may well have subsided, our outrage remains, our anger is constant and our determination to bring the terrorists to justice must remain undiminished. The Prime Minister said that he would put before the House some of the evidence that shows that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda planned and carried out the atrocities
  676
  on 11 September, that they have the will and resources to carry out further atrocities, that the United Kingdom and its citizens are and could be targets and that bin Laden and al-Qaeda were able to commit those atrocities because of their close relationship with the Taliban regime. What bin Laden did before 11 September made shameful reading—what he did on 11 September adds to the existing list of charges.
  I agree with the Prime Minister that there are good reasons why it would not be possible to release all the intelligence that he has. To do so could put lives at risk. The right hon. Gentleman has shared with me more than he is able to present here today and on that basis I am convinced that Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and the Taliban are guilty as charged. Any war against these people is a just war. We must stand ready to fight for our democracy and for civilised values everywhere. Our prayers and our support, however, will also go out to our armed forces and their families for what they may be called upon to do in whatever may follow.
  The events of 11 September show that terrorists such as bin Laden now accept no limits and that the rogue states harbour and nurture such terrorists, using them as instruments of their twisted purpose. In so doing, they place themselves outside the family of civilised nations. To defeat terrorism will require action on all fronts, as the Prime Minister rightly said. We need to strike at the terrorists themselves and to neuter the threat from the rogue states that give them succour. We also need to tackle the links between terrorism and the organised crime that helps to finance and sustain it.
  I agree with the Prime Minister that the immense task ahead requires unprecedented levels of international co-operation. He is to be congratulated on his efforts in conjunction with those of President Bush to build a coalition of such diverse nation states. It is the clear responsibility of every civilised country to do what it can to stamp out this evil that threatens us all.
  Some people may worry about the effect that military action could have on the survival of that coalition. Does the Prime Minister agree that it has been assembled for a purpose, which is to eradicate the threat of terrorism and the apparatus of terror as well as to bring those responsible for 11 September to account? It is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Therefore, will he consider carefully the role that Iraq may well have played and any threat that it continues to or might pose as a sponsor of such international terrorism?
  Some people have genuine and understandable anxieties that British involvement is more likely to make Britain a direct terrorist target. Surely our response must be to remind them of the hundreds of Britons who died in the World Trade Centre. Britain is already a target: it has already been attacked and could be attacked in the future.
  We recognise too, however, that any action against Afghanistan will almost certainly increase the exodus to refugee camps in surrounding countries. Millions of Afghans have already been driven to them by a combination of drought and the collapse of existing aid programmes, as the Prime Minister said. Therefore, I welcome his statement about the increased level of aid. Will he also undertake to ensure that the money allocated to the refugee crisis is spent to ensure that the camps meet as closely as possible internationally agreed standards and

  677
  respect for basic human rights and that if possible no one country should bear a disproportionate responsibility for housing them? Finally, after taking whatever action may be required, we must plan for the millions of refugees to be able to return swiftly to a homeland that will be able to sustain them in their normal lives.
  The Prime Minister spoke of measures to be proposed by the Home Secretary. In the context of 11 September we will certainly give our support to whatever measures are justified and we will scrutinise them in the usual way.
  The Prime Minister rightly emphasised that this is not a war against Islam, but a war against terrorism—all terrorism, as he said. That has been recognised in Muslim countries such as Pakistan and others and by the majority of Muslims in the United Kingdom, many of whom I have met to discuss this issue, as has the Prime Minister. However, a small number of totally unrepresentative groups and individuals remain, to whom the Prime Minister referred as abusing the freedoms that we enjoy to voice support and raise money for terrorism, and in some cases to plan acts of terrorism overseas. When Sheik Omar Bakri Muhammad can claim from the safety of this country that the Prime Minister is a legitimate target for assassination if he visits a Muslim country, we need to review our anti-terrorism laws as a matter of urgency.
  The Home Secretary ought to be able to prevent individuals entering Britain and to deport them on the grounds of national security without the threat of his decisions being overturned as a result of the Human Rights Act 1998. The Government must not let the Act stand in the way of extradition to the United States of individuals facing terrorism charges. That would be the wrong route. Where the law is ineffective or inadequate, it needs to be remedied and I agree with the Prime Minister. I repeat our offer that the Opposition will co-operate with the Government in any way possible to ensure that that can be done.
  The Prime Minister said in his speech to the conference on Tuesday that the structures of terrorism should be attacked everywhere. Does he agree that this means not just waging war in a distant land but that, as he has said before, it applies as much here in the United Kingdom as it does in Afghanistan and Colombia?
  As I have pointed out before, terrorist groups, including the IRA, the UDA, the UVF and others, raise the vast majority of their finance through criminal activity such as intimidation, racketeering, smuggling and—worst of all perhaps—drugs. What plans does the Prime Minister have to wage war on the Mafia sub-culture and criminality that have grown up alongside 30 years of terrorism in Northern Ireland and to ensure that the rule of law is upheld?
  At the weekend, the Sinn Fein president described terrorism as "ethically unjustifiable", yet words alone will not be enough. The people of Northern Ireland require deeds. Surely in the aftermath of 11 September, people everywhere will fail to understand why terrorists even in Northern Ireland do not demonstrate once and for all that violence is in the past and that they are now unequivocally committed to peaceful and democratic politics. I hope and believe that the Prime Minister will use this opportunity to place maximum pressure on those on both sides of the fence to stand by their agreements and to decommission their weapons as agreed.
  678
  Finally, we believe that the Prime Minister was right to recall Parliament today. It is important, given the gravity of the situation and the likelihood of British involvement in any future action, that we keep the situation under short-term review. Yesterday the Home Secretary made a number of important announcements to the conference regarding the domestic response to the terrorist threat. Surely, given the importance of that speech yesterday, there is now a strong case for the House to be recalled again—perhaps on Thursday and Friday of next week—so that that some of those measures can be debated and discussed.
  This is not about revenge and it is not about retribution, and it is not only about justice against one man; it is about standing up for what is right against what is wrong. It is about upholding civilised values against anarchy and it is about defending good against the evil of terrorism. So today we should reaffirm our single and collective purpose in this House. No excuses can be made, no justification sought and no help offered to those who would carry out such deeds. Simply put, let right be done.
  The Prime Minister: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the action that the Government are undertaking and also for his words about bin Laden and the hon. Gentleman's conviction that bin Laden is, indeed, guilty.
  In respect of our armed forces, as I said a couple of days ago, one of the greatest blessings that any British Prime Minister has is the strength, determination and commitment of our armed forces.
  In respect of the coalition, I read in parts of the media that the coalition is under threat but I have not noticed that at all in the discussions that I have had. I believe that those people who are part of the broad coalition of support for the action that we are undertaking know perfectly well that it includes military action. Indeed, not merely has that been made clear by, for example, the French President, but it was made very clear by the German Chancellor who himself is prepared to commit German military support for the action that we are undertaking. In Japan, the Japanese Prime Minister, in what was a bold and courageous move given Japan's history, committed self-defence forces as part of the logistical and support effort for any action.
  I think that there is a very clear understanding right around the world that, in the face of what we are dealing with, there is no alternative unless the Taliban regime do what they have so far obviously failed to do and yield up bin Laden. If they fail to do that, there really is no alternative to taking action. Otherwise we will simply allow that terrorist network to remain, and we know that it will carry on committing acts of terrorism if it is able to do so. That is well understood.
  One of the benefits of the way in which the United States Administration and President Bush have handled this issue over the past few weeks results precisely from the fact that they have not acted precipitately but have taken time to reflect and consider. Had there been a different way forward, it would have come through in these past few weeks—it has not. Therefore, I think that there is possibly a firmer and clearer understanding today among people who analyse the situation reasonably and sensibly that we have to take action.

  679
  In respect of Iraq, of course it is important that we act on the basis of evidence, but I point out that the no-fly zones are still in operation in respect of Iraq and that Britain, with the United States, takes action in policing them.
  In respect of Britain being a target, I agree very strongly with the hon. Gentleman. Britain is in any event a target, as indeed are any of the main western countries—not simply Britain. Britain is known obviously as a very close ally of the United States of America, but acts of terrorism have taken place or have been thwarted in many of the major European countries. The situation is quite clear.
  One of the things that will emerge from the document that we shall place in the Library of the House of Commons—to be fair, this is obviously known by the people who have studied such matters—is that we are dealing with an individual and an organisation that, as a matter of their strong belief and conviction, think it is right that they kill not just American civilians but other civilians around the world who have any connection with the west and western values. Indeed, they are prepared to commit acts of terrorism not merely against western countries but against people in Muslim countries as well. When people read the statements that have been made by bin Laden, they can see that there really is no alternative and that no common agenda can be established with such people.
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that the money that is allocated in respect of aid should be used properly to meet international standards. One of the things that we have been trying to do over the past couple of weeks is establish with the United Nations a sufficiently solid organisational capability so that the money is allocated properly. That is why I was grateful to Kofi Annan for appointing Mr. Brahimi to co-ordinate the efforts. They have to be co-ordinated properly out there on the ground, both inside Afghanistan and in neighbouring countries. That will involve a very big effort indeed.
  The small but significant number of groups that are here and that abuse our freedom are precisely the reason why we need to legislate. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support—in principle at any rate—for such legislation, subject obviously to discussion of the details. It is important that we try to discuss within the main political parties how we can take forward these measures because the quicker they are done, the better they are done and the greater the consent for them, the better the legislation will be.
  As we have tried to do in respect of the military action, we are very happy to make sure that there is proper consultation with all the main political parties on the measures that we propose. The Terrorism Act 2000 strengthened our law somewhat and did have an impact, but we recognise now that the law needs to be taken further.
  Of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman about those terrorist groups that are still operating inside the United Kingdom. It is difficult to make further progress in the peace process until it is absolutely clear that those who want to play a major part in the government of Northern Ireland for the future have unequivocally given up violence for good. That is precisely the reason for the impasse. I believe, however, that it is also important that
  680
  we maintain the peace process if at all possible. One of the lessons from the past few weeks is that, where we have a process in place, let us continue it. However, it has obviously got to be based on the principles that were set out in the agreement.
  I again thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. We are now approaching the difficult time when action is taken. It will be difficult; there are no easy options in this situation. However, I hope and believe that there is a far clearer understanding today that, if we take the right military action, combine it with the right humanitarian assistance and build the right political and diplomatic coalition, we have not merely the best chance of succeeding but the best chance in succeeding of winning the greatest degree possible of support right across the world for what we have done.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: We welcome this further parliamentary recall and the Prime Minister's statement that has accompanied it. Let me make it clear from the outset that, as he knows already, the Liberal Democrats fully support the Government's efforts to protect our own citizens and the interests of our military personnel—their families are anxious—and, with that, to root out international terrorism. In all that, he has our support.
  It is surely correct that today Parliament stands united against the threat to the security of our citizens and to global interests generally. Obviously the Government are facing profoundly serious decisions and, those decisions once arrived at, must be subject to proper democratic scrutiny. That is parliamentary patriotism and it is a key distinction between all of us and the foe that we face.
  We are all here to give calm and, we hope, cogent and effective voice to the legitimate aspirations and apprehensions of those citizens and constituents whom we all seek to represent. Of course, significantly, they include many members of the Muslim community throughout the United Kingdom. The evidence that will be published later today, and which I welcome, will make their apprehensions better understood and make it possible for them to be better addressed. I hope that as time goes by it will be possible, on both sides of the Atlantic, to publish more evidence. There must be no doubt that the evidence to hand is persuasive—persuasive as to culpability and breathtaking criminality and, further, potential criminality.
  Will the Prime Minister reflect upon the overarching need to work within the broad framework of the United Nations? Specifically, does he agree that gaining UN support on the strength of the evidence against bin Laden would help to reassure world opinion about the justice of impending military action? For example, as part of that would he consider the case for making available to Kofi Annan and the Security Council the full extent of the intelligence information that is now available?
  There are several specific aspects. Does the Prime Minister concur that any forthcoming legislation must meet two tests? First, is it likely to impact directly on the clear terrorist threat and the campaign against it? Secondly, can we satisfy ourselves that it does not compromise civil liberties to such an extent that the terrorist is seen to win by default? We will certainly support moves on extradition, as we have already with our colleagues in the European Parliament.
  On religious hatred, an extension of existing discrimination law should be supported, although a longer-term, fuller equality act might prove to be the best

  681
  way forward in days to come. Those are all matters for later, but what of the immediate military concerns? Is the aim to remove the Taliban regime from power? What analysis has been made of the possible political and humanitarian consequences if they are driven out of power and, ultimately, what shape or form of regime are we striving to see established in Afghanistan? What advanced planning is under way to deal with the humanitarian crisis that is already growing as each day passes? The more attention we can give to that, the more we can build upon the sound strategic patience of recent days and help to build a better state of future peace.
  The Prime Minister: In relation to publishing more evidence, we will try to do so as we can. As was stated a moment ago, we have shared the evidence with key partners in NATO. We have to be careful about how we use it and where we disclose it.
  In respect of acting within the broad framework of the UN, we intend to do that. The Foreign Secretary will say a little more about that in his speech. On anti-terrorist legislation, we have to make sure that it is careful and proportionate, but there are obvious gaps in our law. The right hon. Gentleman accepted that on extradition, but there are also gaps in the way that our asylum procedures operate which need to change or we will not be able to deal with this properly.
  On objectives, as I said a couple of days ago, for the Taliban the choice is simple. They either surrender the terrorists and close down the terrorist network or they become our enemies. If that happens, and the regime were to change, we are already working in close co-operation with people in and outside Afghanistan to build an alternative and successor regime that is as broad based as possible, unites ethnic groupings and gives people the chance of a stable Government there. That is an extremely difficult task but from everything that I have seen and read, the Afghan people are as much victims of the Taliban regime as practically anybody else.
  On the humanitarian effort, the key thing is planning. The money is there and we already have in place the necessary finance for the initial amounts that have been sought. The real problem, as we saw when we set up camps around Kosovo, is planning and capability. After consultations between myself and others, Kofi Annan has appointed one person in charge of that operation, but we need to ensure that the organisational capability goes alongside the money, otherwise it will not work.
  David Winnick: As someone who does not often agree with US foreign policy, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he accepts that the United States has undoubtedly shown much diplomacy and restraint in the face of the atrocity of three weeks ago? If there are obvious dangers in any military action, does my right hon. Friend agree that, unless the terrorists are apprehended, there are equally opposite dangers in not taking military action because that would be interpreted by the terrorist network as the democracies being unable and unwilling to defend themselves? That danger must be minimised at any cost.
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It cannot be stated too often that the terrorist
  682
  networks in Afghanistan are exporting terror around the world. Even before 11 September, they had organised an appalling list of terrorist attacks and, as my hon. Friend said, if we do not take action, there is no doubt that they will carry on committing acts of terrorism and be emboldened to carry out even worse attacks. As I said a couple of days ago, there is no doubt that if they could have multiplied the number of people killed on 11 September, they would have done so.
  Sir John Stanley: The Prime Minister was right to warn in his earlier statement that what happened on 11 September is by no means the worst that can happen. Given the risk to the United Kingdom of a terrorist attack using chemical or biological weapons, whether that threat is specific or not, can the Prime Minister tell the House whether it is the clearly stated policy of the Government to take all necessary contingency measures against such an eventuality, including the stockpiling of vaccines and antidotes where they are available, in order to ensure that the largest number of people would have the best possible chance of survival if the worst should happen?
  The Prime Minister: I know that the right hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in these issues and, of course, it is the Government's policy to take all reasonable precautions in respect of any potential terrorist threat. It is important to do so in a way that does not unnecessarily alarm people, but it would be irresponsible if, particularly after what happened on 11 September, there were no detailed work being undertaken and reviewed constantly as to how we should react to any potential threat. I do not want to say more than that, but in so far as it is possible to take such precautions, we do so.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the staff of the consulate-general in New York? As someone who was there when the planes crashed into the buildings, I had the opportunity to visit the consulate-general on Thursday and, by that time, its staff had dealt with 800 to 900 inquiries from anxious relatives all over the world, including not only the United Kingdom but Thailand and Australia. They had issued 150 emergency passports and had found accommodation for many people who needed to stay there, but had lost their homes. Much more vital, they had also been able to provide telephone land links so that anxious families in the United Kingdom and all over the world could talk to people in New York about whom they were concerned.
  My colleagues and I were able to watch, at first hand, the way in which the emergency services responded. It was remarkable to see those individuals, who arrived the very second that the first plane crashed, freely go into that building knowing that they might not come out. We now know that most of them did not come out—yet as others came down the stairs, they rushed up them. There were many unsung heroes on that day, such as the emergency services chaplain who was killed while administering the last rites to one of the victims, and the two individuals who carried one of their colleagues, who was in a wheelchair, down 66 floors to safety. The most ethnically diverse city in the world—New York—responded magnificently after the initial shock and ensured, as we must ensure, that not a single part of the ethnic community that makes up New York was blamed.
  The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. First, I pay tribute—I hope that the House will join me—to Tom Harrison and all his staff at the consulate-general's office in New York. They were quite magnificent. The relatives paid tribute, even amid their grief, to the work that had been done and the help that they had received. A lot of people here, such as the Metropolitan police, played a enormous part in helping to co-ordinate the efforts to sustain those involved, which was obviously difficult for reasons that we know. We have said many times before, but it is worth repeating, that the emergency services in New York were magnificent. I have ensured that the Government have, on behalf of this country, made it clear to key people, to pass on to all their staff, how admiring the British people are of the efforts that they made.
  Peter Bottomley: I expect that the Prime Minister will agree with me in commending those people in Worthing, and probably elsewhere, who will deal with the threat of Islamophobia by holding a fund-raising event—involving Muslims and those in other faiths, including the Christian denominations—for the fund for the victims of the disasters in the United States. Will the right hon. Gentleman pass on the thanks of the House to Mark Byford of the World Service and David Green of the British Council for making plain what they are doing in these times? Although the Chancellor no doubt has to keep the purse strings under control, may I suggest that he considers providing consistent extra funding—not only during this crisis, but beyond—to spread the idea of democracy and openness around the world, because the real way to confront such problems in the long term is to allow people to live in peace in their own countries, and that requires more democracy, not less?
  The Prime Minister: I certainly pay tribute to people in Worthing and elsewhere who have made it clear that Muslims are with us in the struggle against terrorism. They have often been the victims. Indeed, many Muslims were killed in the World Trade Centre. I hope that people understand that, despite the often disproportionate publicity given the statements of a few extreme people who call themselves Muslims, the vast majority of Muslims were appalled at the acts that took place and condemned them utterly.
  We are increasing the funding for the World Service, and it is worth it. It does a magnificent job around the world, as does the British Council. They are very strong British institutions, which play a part not merely in reaching people and in communicating with them, but in giving them some sense, if they live in a country struggling under repression or dictatorship, that there is a different world to which people can aspire.
  Ms Julia Drown: I support the Government in the actions they have taken since the appalling events of 11 September. In responding to those attacks, does my right hon. Friend believe that children in particular should be protected? If so, will he ask Ministers to ensure that no British children—under 18s—are sent into action in our name as part of this conflict?
  The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall do all that we can to protect British children.
  Mr. David Trimble: I assure the Prime Minister of our continuing support for the actions that the
  684
  Government have to take. May I also say that I am greatly impressed by the careful and deliberate way in which the actions of the United States have unfolded during the past few weeks? We hope that that indicates how matters will develop during the coming days. However, we know that choices have to be made between difficult and sometimes unpalatable options.
  Terrorism is terrorism, and it requires no further qualification, so I ask the Prime Minister to reject the spurious distinction that some people seek to draw between international and domestic terrorism. The events of recent weeks—I am thinking of the arrest of the head of the IRA's engineering department in Colombia while developing similar mortars for the FARC guerrillas, the expedition of Sinn Fein's Assembly chief whip to Turkey in support of a variety of Turkish and Islamic terrorist groups and the appearance on Saturday at the Sinn Fein conference of a notorious Puerto Rican terrorist—all show that the Irish republican movement is part of an international terrorist network and that there is still no sign that it is making the changes required by the Belfast agreement. I ask the Prime Minister to bear that in mind in coming days. I understand his desire with regard to the present process, but we must recognise that it has now become a completely one-sided process. All the terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland—loyalist and republican—have broken their ceasefires in recent weeks and months, and sooner or later the Government will have to deal with the machinery and the resources of IRA and loyalist terrorism with the same determination as they display elsewhere.
  The Prime Minister: First, the legislation that we propose will apply to terrorism wherever it occurs—whether inside the United Kingdom or outside, or whether it is international or domestic. Secondly, of course, we have the current impasse in the peace process in Northern Ireland precisely because it is necessary, if people want to play a part in the government of Northern Ireland, for them to demonstrate an unequivocal commitment to peaceful and democratic means. Given that the right hon. Gentleman has played such a large part in that process, I hope that he understands that, before it began, we also had a very serious situation in Northern Ireland, where terrorist groups operated and killed people year on year. We know that the situation is still very difficult and fragile there. Therefore, we must try to find a way forward, consistent with the principles that we set out in the Belfast agreement. That is what we are trying to do. I know that, because of the huge part that he has played, he will want to see that process move forward, and I accept that it can move forward only on the basis of principle.
  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: The publishing of some of the evidence is obviously very welcome, and we wish the Prime Minister godspeed in his efforts to consolidate the international coalition against terrorism. Will he tell the House what convinces him that, given the tragic failure of the intelligence community before 11 September, its competency has improved since 11 September?
  The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for his good wishes in the action that we take, but we have to bear in mind two things. First, our intelligence services do a superb job. However, it is often difficult with

  685
  organisations that operate in a highly secretive way to be sure of exactly what will happen. That is so even for a nation with the resources of the United States at its disposal. Secondly—my hon. Friend will know much about this—one of the things that we learn as we deal with such issues is that there can be a great deal of intelligence traffic, the significance of which may not be fully recognisable until after something has happened. Frankly, if we operated on the basis of every single piece of intelligence that came in, we would disperse our activities rather too widely. It is difficult, but I really believe that our intelligence is clear, certainly with respect to the attacks. But we have now reached the point where we must recognise that intelligence, no matter how sophisticated, is insufficient to deal with the threat. That is why we must deal with it directly and at source.
  Patrick Mercer: The Prime Minister has spoken of the strength and determination of our armed forces. How will that strength and determination be further reinforced by the use of specialist reservists such as Arabic speakers, interrogators, intelligence officers and, above all, medical men, all of whom so far have remained uncalled?
  The Prime Minister: I pay tribute to the work of the specialist reservists and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will use them as and when we need them. We are still considering the requests that have been made about the precise capabilities that we can offer, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will make full use of all the different parts of our armed forces, including reservists.
  Mr. Mohammad Sarwar: We face the most miserable humanitarian and refugee crisis in history. Millions of people face starvation and hundreds of thousands are desperate to flee Afghanistan. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that continuous supplies will be the top priority at this crucial time?
  The Prime Minister: I can confirm that. We have the money identified and we have experience of dealing with Afghan refugees, as there were some 4.5 million on the move before 11 September. People have been fleeing the Taliban regime for a long time. I am confident that provided that we put in place the measures that we have identified around the borders of Afghanistan, we will be able to provide for people in camps that are set up there, although it is a huge logistical organisational operation. However, it is also important that we try to get supplies to people in Afghanistan. That will be more difficult, in part because the Taliban regime have made it clear that they will take action against anyone who co-operates with western agencies, even relief agencies, but we are doing what we can.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: Will the President, I mean the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows what I mean. Does he agree that suicide aerial terrorists have been waging psychological and economic warfare against the west and that the effect on the air transport industries in particular has been especially grave? Is it not the case that two state carriers have had to seek the protection of their
  686
  Governments from bankruptcy and that many thousands of jobs have been lost, not least in this country? Will he assure the House that the Government will take specific measures to give airlines the resources to mount the security measures necessary and that, if necessary, airport departure tax will also be lifted?
  The Prime Minister: We have the insurance agreement that will be of some assistance and, obviously, we are looking carefully at airline security measures. Of course these are difficult times for the airline industries and we are in close discussion and consultation with them. However, I believe that one of the most important things that we can do is to demonstrate by the strength of the action that we take that people can have confidence in going back to using the airlines in the way that they did previously. We have some experience—obviously less so given the particular nature of the attacks of 11 September—from the Gulf war of a crisis in confidence among people using airlines. I believe that that will pass when they see that proper security measures are in place and that we are taking the correct action. As a result of what happened on 11 September there is already a great deal more security in place and people should have confidence in the ability to travel as freely as they wish.
  Ms Gisela Stuart: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for outlining the coalition that has been built up not just here in the House but internationally. That coalition will be severely tested over the coming days and weeks. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Members on both sides of the House will be judged by their conduct in the House and outside; that we must not lose sight of the overarching specific objective; and that force will have to be used to preserve peace, however uncomfortable that may be at times?
  The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We are about to go through a difficult time because when action begins there will be many difficulties and problems, as there always are with such action. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support. Of course it is important, in so far as it is possible—people in this country have the democratic right to disagree and long may that continue—to demonstrate a united resolve in this House.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity directly to distance himself from the reported remarks of Lady Thatcher, who seems unaware that all representative Muslim associations in this country have condemned the atrocities in the United States? Does he hope and believe that the evidence that can be published will carry all members of the coalition? Will he reiterate that the military options available will avoid, wherever possible, the loss of further innocent lives? Finally, a number of hon. Members have remarked on the cautious, determined, hugely impressive and highly focused response of the United States Administration. Given that that is the response of the country most affected by the appalling events of 11 September, will the Prime Minister commend that hugely impressive stance to the rest of the international coalition?
  The Prime Minister: I have not read in detail the remarks of Lady Thatcher. I have already said in my

  687
  statement that the vast majority of Muslims totally condemn the attacks on 11 September. In respect of the evidence being shared with other allies, I repeal what I said in my statement—that this evidence has been shown to allies in NATO and they have accepted that it is compelling. I hope that we will be able to release more evidence. After the attack on USS Cole and the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, evidence tended to emerge over a period of time, and people will find in the document detailed evidence of the complicity of al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden in respect of those attacks. The difficulty at the moment is that in the immediate aftermath of 11 September we have a desperate, urgent need to protect carefully our ability to gather further intelligence. That is the inhibition that is upon us and I hope that people understand that. The reason that I thought it right to release the document is that it shows at least the conclusions that we are able to draw from the intelligence that we have. As for the sensible way in which the United States has proceeded, I certainly recommend that to everyone and I think that it is supported by every member of the coalition that I know.
  Mr. Stuart Bell: My right hon. Friend said earlier that Sikhs and Muslims also lost their lives in the World Trade Centre. He will be aware that the Archbishop of Canterbury and other Church leaders have called for a national day of prayer tomorrow for peace, justice and reconciliation and that Muslims, Sikhs and other inter-faith denominations have supported that call for prayer. Does my right hon. Friend agree that tomorrow, in schools, workplaces and elsewhere, a moment of contemplation, meditation, reflection and prayer would give a sense of faith and hope to our people?
  The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. I spoke to the Archbishop of Canterbury over the weekend, and obviously I have also spoken to other religious leaders. The Archbishop of Canterbury is deeply committed to inter-faith dialogue, which is important in so far as good can come out of the terrible acts of 11 September. A closer understanding between the faiths would be sensible and perhaps a closer education of our own society about the degree of common heritage and common values would also be valuable. It is important, in these times in particular, that people understand where those of the faith of Islam are coming from and that it is a peaceful religion. It is also important that people in the
  688
  world of Islam understand that we recognise that and also understand elements of the Christian, Jewish and other faiths.
  Mr. John Maples: The Prime Minister has mentioned the need to change extradition law, but surely the problem is delays in the courts rather than weaknesses in the legislation. The United States has been seeking the extradition of three alleged members of the al-Qaeda organisation in connection with the African embassy bombings in 1998—one since September 1998 and two since July 1999—and France has been seeking the extradition from the United Kingdom of a terrorist suspect since December 1995. Not only are those delays unacceptable, they are almost certainly costing lives. If we are to be at the forefront of the fight against international terrorism, we cannot allow Britain to be used as a place where terrorists can seek safe haven from justice in our allied countries.
  The Prime Minister: I wholly agree. That is why not only Britain, but other countries around the world—countries with very similar problems—are seeking to tighten their legislation. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the delays are in the courts, but, on the whole, they are caused by weaknesses in the legislation. That is why we need to change the legislation to eliminate those weaknesses.
  We need to look very carefully at the powers we have and the ability to speed up the process. There is no point in our saying that we are leaders in an international coalition against terrorism if our own legislation is not up to the mark. That is another reason why it is important to act. I should add that we are not the only country considering such action—most European countries and other countries are considering the same thing. Our laws, rightly and properly, have been drawn up to deal with the generality, the majority, of cases, but in the face of the current highly specific threat—even if it applies only to a small number of cases—we have to ensure that our law has the integrity that we need.

  Coalition against International Terrorism

    SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25 (Periodic adjournments),
    That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Monday 15th October.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

  International Terrorism
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
  10.42 am
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): As we have been hearing for the past hour and 10 minutes, the House does not need to be reminded of the scale of the act of mass murder committed on 11 September. Although it appears that there may be fewer British victims than were at first feared, for Britain it remains the greatest loss of civilian life in any single terrorist incident. In any event, it was an attack on democracy and on civilisation. Even if no United Kingdom citizens had lost their lives in the atrocity, we would still share with the United States of America, our allies and our partners, a common determination to secure the mutually reinforcing objectives of justice and security.
  Our ultimate aim is simply stated: that there should be no safe haven for terrorists anywhere in the world. In the meantime, we have unfinished business. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has just made clear, we now have—and we are publishing it—incontrovertible evidence that links Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaedah organisation with the attacks on 11 September. Our most urgent task is to hold those people to account and to make sure that they pose no further threat to global security. Our response will be targeted and proportionate to achieving those objectives.
  Overthrowing the current Taliban regime is not a primary objective of our action, but if the Taliban continue to harbour terrorists they will be considered our enemy and will have to face the consequences. Whether the Taliban become a target is essentially a matter for them, not for us. That is underlined by the terms of United Nations Security Council resolution 1368, which speaks of all necessary steps being taken against not only the terrorists, but those who harbour terrorists.
  Those objectives are not up for negotiation. All of us fully understand, not least from conversations with our constituents, that there are those in the House and outside it who are concerned about the prospect of the use of force, and many more who, while supporting the use of force, are profoundly concerned about its consequences. We share that anxiety and concern, but the danger would be much greater if we did not respond effectively.
  Our aim is the precise opposite of the terrorists' aim: it is to protect innocent life, not to take it. There can be no possibility of reasoning with people who have no reasonable demands. We have to confront them, as we ought to have confronted fascism in the 1930s: had we done so, the world would have been spared the much bloodier confrontation of the 1940s. Our aim is not revenge, but the complete removal of the threat that terrorism poses to our values and our way of life.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out our overall approach in his statements to the House on 14 September and this morning, and most comprehensively and vividly of all in the address to the Labour party conference on Tuesday. The fact that his address was shown live on all major channels in the United States and in many other countries speaks volumes for the leadership that he is providing not only for our
  690
  own country but around the world as one of the key allies of the United States of America. It underlines again the extent of the commitment that we as a country have pledged to the people and the Government of the United States.
  We all admire the dignity, determination and restraint that President Bush, his Administration and the American people have shown at this most difficult of times. The close friendship between our peoples needs no further explanation today, but I will say that the truest test of friendship is in the hour of need. Twice during the last century, the United States came to Britain's aid; today, we have to come to the aid of the United States.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been making tireless efforts. He has held countless meetings and telephone calls with other world leaders; he has visited Berlin, Paris, New York, Washington and Brussels; and, as the House knows, he has now left for a visit to Russia, the interests of which are, like ours, directly engaged in the crisis and which forms an integral part of the global front against terrorism.
  As my right hon. Friend said, let us not forget that, just this week, terrorism has continued to take an ugly toll of innocent human life—in this case, in India. In Srinagar, the capital of Jammu and Kashmir, a suicide bomber struck at the heart of that state's democracy by detonating a bomb in the State Assembly, killing 38 and injuring many more. The terrorist organisation Jaish-i-Mohammad, which I proscribed when I was Home Secretary, has claimed responsibility for that outrage. The House should know that we know that the leader of that organisation is linked to Osama bin Laden. I know that I speak for the whole House when I condemn that utterly unjustified attack and express our condolences to the families of the victims and to the Government and people of India.
  International law was mentioned by several Members who questioned my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I cannot emphasise enough that the actions that the United States, we and other partners in the international coalition have in contemplation are entirely within the framework of international law. The founding text of the United Nations, its charter, provides at article 51 for the right of UN members to individual or collective self-defence when they come under armed attack. The UN Security Council has passed two resolutions in the response to the crisis. The first, resolution 1368, states that those directly responsible for the attacks should be held to account, together with those who harbour them. The second, resolution 1373, focuses on two key areas: suppressing the financing of terrorists and denying them a safe haven from which to operate. That is the first time that a resolution has imposed an obligation on all states to respond to the global terrorist threat.
  Lynne Jones: My right hon. Friend has outlined the role of the United Nations, and the Prime Minister said that the evidence against bin Laden and his associates has been shared with key partners. Will my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary confirm that one of those key partners is Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, and that the UN's role in the programme on which we are embarked will not be limited simply to organising humanitarian aid?
  Mr. Straw: I believe that Kofi Annan has been fully briefed. It is he in particular who has pointed out the clear rights of member states to take action under article 51 of the charter of which he is the custodian.
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not much use people asking for United Nations authority for action and then opposing the action all the same? That happened in Iraq when Mr. Benn demanded a United Nations Security Council resolution, got it and then opposed the action.
  Mr. Straw: I have a feeling that my right hon. Friend has been waiting for some time to say that. [Laughter.] Which dish is it that is best served cold? [Laughter.] As ever, my right hon. Friend makes an entirely fair point. I have heard people say, "What about the United Nations? Why is not the General Assembly going to meet?" Notwithstanding the fact that the UN General Assembly headquarters are only a few blocks away from the site of the atrocity, it met the very next day. The Security Council passed a resolution, the text of which I have in front of me, and so too did the General Assembly in almost identical terms, except for the final paragraphs, which come within the ambit solely of the Security Council.
  The extent and breadth of the international coalition and consensus that has been put together since the atrocity is extraordinary. Resolutions in the Security Council and General Assembly have, on the whole, been unanimous, which is almost unprecedented. As my right hon. Friend made clear, if we are to vote for and support their words, we have to ensure that we understand the meaning of those words, and the meaning of those words is that there has been the fullest possible support and endorsement by the international community as expressed within the General Assembly and Security Council for the military action now in contemplation.
  Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan): Is not that exactly the point? The United Nations is no longer immobilised because of cold war enmities. It has the capacity for action. Is not the point that it is the most important international institution, not one of a large number?
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is right. The basis of international law for the whole world is the United Nations charter.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Are the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues trying to get through the United Nations, building on the resolutions to which he has referred, a binding Geneva-style, all-embracing convention against terrorism. to which every member state would be expected to subscribe if that state was to continue to receive the benefits of membership?
  Mr. Straw: There are already a number of conventions and I shall come to the details. We are in the vanguard of those who have signed and ratified those conventions. The Government of India have produced a further draft convention. Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Defence and I discussed many matters with the distinguished Foreign Minister of India, Mr. Singh, including how, in alliance with the Government of India and many others,
  692
  we can better progress the convention, which would provide additional powers. Meanwhile, there is Security Council resolution 1373, which for the first time in the history of the United Nations mandates member states—they are not given an option—to take a variety of actions to fight terrorism of all kinds on one definition.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: This is an important point for those of us who recognise that action must be taken against the terrorists. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that under international law and the aegis of the United Nations action has to be, in the Prime Minister's words, proportionate, and that we cannot sanction action going beyond what is legitimate and proportionate?
  Mr. Straw: Action must be proportionate, but we must bear in mind the proportion of the attack against the United States and the proportion of the threat still posed by the al-Qaeda organisation.
  None of us has any quarrel with the people of Afghanistan, who have suffered more than anyone from the wickedness of the current Taliban regime. My right hon. Friend set out the humanitarian assistance that has already been made available and is being put in place. The Secretary of State for International Development and her Department have been in the lead, nationally and internationally, in ensuring that an aid programme backed up by money is put in place. We are using their expertise, which is unrivalled in the world, to ensure that proper coalition of humanitarian assistance.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Straw: I will if I may first make some progress.
  Our help to the Afghan people must go beyond that. They have the right to expect a peaceful and secure future. In July, well before the 11 September atrocities, the Government hosted a meeting of Foreign Ministers from neighbouring countries at the request of the United Nations at Wilton Park, a Foreign Office conference centre. It was agreed that a future Government should be broad based and reflect the country's rich ethnic mix. Unlike the Taliban regime, the future Government and country of Afghanistan should be a member of the United Nations.
  Mr. Chris Mullin: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Straw: I will if I may make some progress first.
  We want to work with all responsible Afghans to bring peace to their country and to help it on the path to stable development. The country needs irrigation, agriculture, schools, hospitals and roads. Afghanistan's friends will be generous. Our commitment to the Afghan people is straightforward. We say to them, "You have been ill served by those who have made your country a centre for terrorism across the world. As soon as this stops the world will work with you to build a better future for you and your children."
  Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle): Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: I want to make some progress because many Members wish to speak.

  693
  Regional instability is a natural consequence when the rule of law collapses in a failed state such as Afghanistan, and it is as much a threat to the Muslim world as it is to the west. One country that knows from long experience the damage that the Taliban regime have done to the Afghan people and their neighbours is Iran. Last week, I visited Teheran for talks with President Khatami and the Iranian Government—the first such visit by a British Foreign Secretary in a quarter of a century. We discussed how our two countries could better work together to help the refugees who are already seeking shelter in Iran, 2 million of whom crossed the border before 11 September. We agreed to carry on the fight against drugs. As the House knows, 90 per cent. of the heroin on British streets originates in areas of Afghanistan under Taliban control. A high proportion of it is smuggled through Iran, which has already lost thousands of its troops in the struggle against this evil.
  President Khatami has spoken of the need for a dialogue between civilisations. The need is now greater than ever before. The evil deeds of bin Laden and al-Qaeda are sanctioned by no faith, let alone one like Islam, which stresses tolerance and respect for human life.
  When I visited Cairo last week, that message was reinforced by the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, one of the world spiritual leaders of Sunni Muslims. He told me that the terrorist attacks against the United States went completely against the teachings of Islam and that those responsible should be brought to justice. We are, therefore, at war with terrorism and in that war we are on the same side as Islam.
  We would all gain from removing barriers to understanding between peoples and faiths and from creating a much more inclusive world. The experience of 11 September shows the continuing need for Britain to be actively engaged in the world. When states fail or conflict breaks out, it matters to us, whether it happens in the Balkans, Latin America, Africa, the far east or the middle east. Few parts of the world have suffered more from conflict and acts of terrorism than the middle east. Last week, I talked to the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres as well as to Chairman Arafat of the Palestinian National Authority about the latest moves for peace. I made it clear how determined the United Kingdom is to help those parties reach a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement. The House will therefore wish to join me in expressing dismay at the further acts of violence against innocent civilians this week. The Palestinian National Authority should do more to prevent such acts and to punish those responsible. Israel's response should be neither excessive nor disproportionate.
  I urge both sides to redouble their efforts to enforce the ceasefire, to implement confidence-building measures and to resume talks aimed at a settlement based on the principle of "land for peace". Peace with security can come only through such a political process, in which Israel's rights as a state and the rights of its citizens are fully recognised, and which at the same time allows the emergence of a viable, democratic and peaceful Palestinian state committed to co-existence with Israel and recognised and respected by Israel. That has long been the position of the United Kingdom, shown by repeated
  694
  endorsements of many statements to that effect by the European Union and underlined again by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the Labour party conference. President Bush himself expressed the same view on Tuesday:
  "The idea of a Palestinian state has always been part of a vision. so long as the right of Israel to exist is respected".
  Mr. John Maples: When the Foreign Secretary went to Iran and published an article in an Iranian newspaper using the word "Palestine", was that deliberate or accidental?
  Mr. Straw: It was neither. It certainly was not accidental. I made it absolutely clear at the time. There was no apology. My use of the word "Palestine"—I do not retract one word of that article—places me in good company: with not only the President of the United States, but the Prime Minister of Israel, who just two days before the article appeared spoke in a speech on 23 September of the possibility of a Palestinian state.
  Mr. Mullin: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Straw: I will give way for the last time to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Mullin: May I take my right hon. Friend back to the passage of his speech in which he referred to what might come after the Taliban? We should not leave the wretched people of Afghanistan to the tender mercies of the warlords. It was their inability to cease their feuding that led to the Taliban coming to power in the first place. Has he contemplated the possibility of seeking a United Nations mandate for the future government of Afghanistan, as happened in Cambodia and East Timor?
  Mr. Straw: I agree. There are many lessons to be learned about why the current condition in Afghanistan developed—lessons not only for the Afghan people and those in surrounding states but for the whole international community. That is why the UN Secretary-General has already appointed a special high representative to deal with the matter on his behalf, and why huge effort and consideration is being given to the future structure of a Government and stable state in Afghanistan and the region as a whole. My hon. Friend's suggestion that there may have to be some UN mandate to cover that country is certainly an option that is under consideration. Of course, the decision will have to be made by the Security Council.
  Mr. Tom Levitt: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Straw: With great respect, I must make progress because many others wish to speak.
  The middle east is a key part of the global consensus against terrorism that we are now seeking to build. Let me briefly outline how that consensus is strengthening.
  Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have severed their links with the Taliban. Countries throughout the world are pledging support—financial, humanitarian or strategic—on the many fronts of the fight against terrorism. In the G8, we are looking at ways of cutting

  695
  off terrorist financing, strengthening aviation security and enhancing co-operation on intelligence and security matters. In the European Union, we have agreed to create a European arrest warrant, a common EU definition of terrorism and a specialist anti-terrorist team in Europol. All 19 NATO allies have accepted the evidence of bin Laden's and al-Qaeda's guilt and, as I have already made clear, resolutions have been passed in the Security Council.
  Britain has long taken a lead against terrorism and, sadly, has had all too much experience of fighting it. Therefore, I am pleased to announce that later today in New York a statement will be made that the United Kingdom has accepted an invitation to chair the Security Council committee that will monitor the implementation of resolution 1373, the key UN resolution against terrorism. The fact that our fellow Security Council members have invited us to do so is a personal tribute to the great experience and skills of our ambassador to the United Nations, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, and his team.
  As we have heard, Britain's anti-terrorist legislation, including the Terrorism Act 2000 that I introduced to the House as Home Secretary, is such that we have already complied with many of the obligations of resolution 1373. We are one of the few states to have ratified and implemented all 12 of the international anti-terrorist conventions, but we are considering what further legislative action we must take. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave details of that yesterday at our party conference and will give further details to the House in due course.
  Simon Hughes: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: With great respect, I am about to close my remarks.
  I and others have said before in the House that the world changed on 11 September, but we should make it clear to our citizens that our way of life has not changed. We are all more vigilant, and so we should remain. We are seeking a step change in the response to international terrorism in order that we can better protect and enjoy our way of life and the way of life of peaceful peoples throughout the world. Combating the threat of terrorism is the first priority for our society and for the whole of the global community.
  On the evidence that we saw in the United States on 11 September. it is obvious that this terrible organisation, these evil people, will strike again if they are given the chance, but I say to the people of the United Kingdom that we have no specific knowledge of any specific threat against this country or our nationals and we are deploying all the tools at our disposal—military, intelligence, police, economic, diplomatic and political—to ensure that those people do not get the chance.
  As President Bush has made clear, in the fight against terrorism, against that evil, we face a long, hard struggle. Holding Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and those who harbour them to account will be just the first step, but we will win, because we are defending the values of humanity and the rule of law and civilisation, which are shared by east as well as west, by Muslims as well as those of other faiths and by the great majority of the nations and peoples of the world.
  11.7 am
  Mr. Michael Ancram: I welcome the debate and the recall of Parliament. The whole House has listened with grave attention to the Prime Minister's statement and the speech of the Foreign Secretary. My hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has outlined our response. I am grateful for the chance to do so more fully.
  I join the Foreign Secretary in sending our expressions of sympathy to the Government and people of India in relation to the Srinagar atrocity. Although I welcome this opportunity, I must touch on a difficulty that has arisen because it is three weeks since we previously met to discuss the international crisis and because we are meeting for only one day.
  Yesterday the Home Secretary launched a raft of proposals. We have already indicated that, where such proposals are clearly designed to combat and will be effective in combating international and domestic terrorism, we wish to give them a fair wind. It is therefore somewhat disappointing that the Home Secretary will not be explaining to the House today or answering questions on the proposals that he outlined yesterday to his party conference. I hope that he will take the earliest opportunity to do so. As the Leader of the Opposition said, we stand ready to see Parliament recalled again before the end of next week to enable him so to do.
  Prior to the Home Secretary's announcements yesterday, we asked for the Secretary of State for International Development to address the House today on the growing humanitarian crisis. That request was rejected by the Leader of the House. Again I trust that the House will at the earliest opportunity have the chance to hear from the right hon. Lady.
  It is now more than three weeks since the terrible acts of terrorism were perpetrated on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, and the deliberate destruction of so many innocent lives. Three weeks, and the horror of the images remains vivid; the anger at the evil of those outrages lives on; and the determination to bring to book those behind the crimes against humanity is undiminished. What has changed is that the first reflex reaction of a desire for a quick response has been replaced by a grimly determined analysis of the terrorist apparatus that spawned those acts, a systematic identification of those who were responsible for them and the preparation of the means by which its eradication can be achieved.
  When we last met in this House three weeks ago, I expressed my hope for a controlled and measured response. I paid tribute to the coolness and restraint of President Bush and his national security team. How much more today must we make clear our admiration for the careful and conscientious way in which our American allies have built the case for action and are focusing on key objectives? President Bush has met outrage with reason and terror with carefully measured reaction. Our confidence in him and his team has not been misplaced. Today I reaffirm our commitment to support the Government in standing shoulder to shoulder with our American colleagues.
  Needless to say, in the 23 days that have passed, some have sought to sow seeds of doubt as to whether any action is justified or sensible. I suspect that we shall hear more such voices today. Let me make this clear: to accede to such thoughts would be to betray the thousands of innocent people who died on that dreadful day, and would

  697
  reward the terrorist murderers who killed them. Indeed, with the passage of time, the need to take on the terrorists, to eradicate them and the apparatus of terror which they control, and to give no respite to those who shelter or hide them, becomes ever clearer and the case ever stronger.
  The Prime Minister today outlined some of the incontrovertible evidence of Osama bin Laden's responsibility for, and link with, the murderous destruction of 11 September. As my right hon. Friend made clear, we accept that evidence. It is laid before Parliament today and it makes certain things very clear: to do nothing is not an option; to seek to compromise with bin Laden or those who support him would be to fly in the face of the total barbarity and inhumanity of the deeds for which he must bear the blame. He and his henchmen in al-Qaeda must be pursued and, one way or another, brought to book, and the network of terror that he has cast about the world must be destroyed.
  Some also argue that, once that objective has been achieved, that should be an end to the matter. That, too, would be to miss the point. I was delighted to hear the Foreign Secretary say that that part of our objectives is a start, and only a start. To say that it is the end of the matter would be to leave the terrorist virus alive and flourishing in its various environments, ready to emerge stronger and even more deadly in the future. When the President and the Prime Minister declared their purpose to be the eradication of international terrorism, we applauded them because anything less would be to promote the possibility of even worse acts of terrorism in the future.
  Bin Laden must be the first objective along with his friends and supporters, particularly in al-Qaeda, but the fight against international terrorism will have begun only once that objective has been achieved.
  International terrorism is not a monster that, once the head has been cut off, shrivels and dies. It is more like a virus that spreads of its own accord, self sufficient within its own environment and location. The fight must continue with equal determination and resolve until the scourge of international terrorism and those who sponsor or promote it are removed.
  There will be siren calls from those who wish to see no further action. They will be the "appeasement" challenges of our generation, and the Government will have our full-hearted support in resisting them. We must let those who stand beside us in the fight against terrorism know that we are with them until the campaign has been won. We must not flinch from addressing, too, the terrorism of Hezbollah, of Hamas and, closer to home, of the still active remnants of the Provisional IRA and the loyalist terrorists.
  We need to starve the terrorists of their finance—often emanating from crime—which enables them to flourish and to perpetrate their acts of criminal violence. We must never appease them, nor allow them to gain advantage from their acts of terrorism. We must make it clear to any state that sponsors or promotes terrorism, against which we are committed, that we shall bring to bear whatever pressure is needed to ensure that such sponsorship or support is ended.
  698
  We must leave the terrorists no hiding places, no safe houses, and no communities who will give them shelter and protection. Like the eradication of a virus. it will be hard, long and not without risk, but the ultimate goal of freeing the world from the scourge of terrorism must be worth that hardship and risk. It can be achieved only if we constantly re-emphasise that this is a fight against terrorism—murderous, calculating, increasingly sophisticated and progressively more dangerous. It is not about religion or culture, and those who seek to suggest that it is are, in the end, the friends of terrorism. Where terrorism claims to be about idealism, that concept is invariably distorted and perverted in the psychopathic terrorist mind. That is what allows it to slaughter without mercy.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: The right hon. Gentleman uses the word "terrorism", naturally enough in this debate, very often. Is it not time for an agreed definition of terrorism? Does he recall that the Government of whom he was a member could themselves have been accused of sponsoring and supporting terrorism in other countries?
  Mr. Ancram: I shall treat the hon. Gentleman's last remark with the contempt that it deserves. He may welcome the fact that, the other day, the European Union produced proposals in which there was an attempt to define an act of terrorism, but he knows as well as I do that there are great difficulties, on a United Nations or wider basis, in securing agreement on what actually constitutes terrorism. We shall support the Foreign Secretary in any attempt that he makes to secure such a definition in the future.
  Mr. George Galloway: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the Government of whom he was a member supported the mujaheddin holy warriors of the Northern Alliance, who gave birth to the Taliban, in their terrorist war against the Government in Kabul, which led us to this juncture in the first place?
  Mr. Ancram: May I say to the hon. Gentleman, whom I have known for a long time, that I spent four years combating terrorism in Northern Ireland, and I need no lessons from him as to what constitutes a threat of terrorism. The House knows that what we are about today is a campaign to eradicate the virus of international terrorism because it threatens everyone—every religion, Government and nation throughout the world. We must continue to condemn those who seek to stir up religious or racial unrest on the back of 11 September. The origins of those outrages were not Muslim or Christian; they were not of any religion. Indeed, members of all faiths were the victims of them. Those evil deeds were the product of a perverted intelligence, and we must not allow them to drive wedges between people whose faiths are in fact about peace and ideals about human understanding. I support the Government's proposals to deal with that matter in future legislation.
  The goal of freeing the world from the scourge of international terrorism can be achieved only if the international will exists. I pay tribute to the coalition that has been built up over the past three weeks, which is truly remarkable, and to the Prime Minister for his contribution to its formation. Last Friday's UN resolution was another

  699
  milestone in the history of international co-operation. The coalition is the more remarkable—indeed, the stronger—for the fact that it is not homogenous but comprises different levels of participation and, if I may say so, of enthusiasm. At the same time, it is bound together by the common understanding that international terrorism is a virus that can destroy us all.
  May I pay a special tribute to the Government of Pakistan, whose courageous stand will be central to the first phase of the fight against terrorism? They have stood up for what is right and we owe the people of Pakistan our support and help, not just in the short term but in the difficult years that may lie ahead. We understand the sensitivities of their position and we respect them.
  The fight against international terrorism must have twin tracks. The eradication of terrorism, if it is to mean anything in the long term, must also mean the delivery of hope—the hope of delivery not only from the oppression of terror, but from the oppression of poverty and starvation. In Afghanistan the two are linked, because so much of the humanitarian crisis that we are witnessing is the result of the depredations of the Taliban—but the crisis is wider than that, and if we are to be credible in our fight against terror we must be credible in our fight against humanitarian disaster, too.
  The United Nations has said that Afghanistan is facing a humanitarian crisis of unprecedented proportions. That is a problem that cannot be ignored; it needs to be aired on the Floor of the House, and the Government must respond to it.
  Before 11 September, Afghanistan had been ravaged by 20 years of civil war. As a result there are now 4 million Afghan refugees in the region, and 1 million internally displaced people. Now we are told that a further 1 million are likely to flee to Pakistan, half a million to Iran and 100,000 to the central Asian republics.
  Afghanistan is also a country ravaged by drought of appalling proportions. The harvest has failed for the fourth year in a row, and the United Nations expects 7 million people to become dependent on emergency food supplies. The stark truth is that we are now working against the odds and against the clock to avert a devastating famine.
  The Government have announced emergency funds to cope with the refugee crisis. We welcome that, but serious questions remain about standards in the refugee camps, and we look to the Government to assure us that adequate steps will urgently be taken to ensure that the camps are clean and safe and that the basic dignity of the refugees will be respected.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I am grateful that the right hon. Gentleman is devoting some of his time to the important issue of humanitarian aid. Does he agree that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has given a tremendous lead, but that, as in other areas, if we act unilaterally we cannot solve all the problems that we want to solve? Because of their commitment, the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are in a strong position to ask the rest of the world, especially the nations in the coalition, to make the same humanitarian contribution as we do—and that is just as important as addressing the problems that we are discussing today.
  Mr. Ancram: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is correct to say that that crisis, like the terrorist crisis, must be dealt with on the basis of a wide coalition. I am also sure that this country, and the Government, have a role in leading the coalition in the direction that he would like. As I said at the beginning. I would have liked to hear from the Secretary of State for International Development in this debate. I hope that at some time in the future we can debate this serious issue, and hear from her.
  The United Nations says that we have a six-week window to feed the hungry, and it is terrifyingly clear that there is no time for delay. We need to hear now that the funds made available will be spent without delay to alleviate hunger. In particular, I would welcome information about what steps are being taken internationally to secure as soon as possible the reopening of normal supply routes into Afghanistan. That will be the key to getting aid to those areas.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: Might it be time for the international community to consider the policies of the Governments and alliances that impoverished and drove into further deprivation the people of nations with which we were in conflict? When we use those tactics against nations, rather than dealing with the problems of their leaders, we are feeding the monster.
  Mr. Ancram: Obviously, part of what we seek to do internationally is to ensure that in dealing with the crisis of terrorism we also deal with some of the reasons why terrorists have been able to base themselves in those countries—but it would perhaps be beyond the bounds of the debate to start dealing now with the global aspects that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
  The problem must be dealt with on the ground in Afghanistan. We shall support international actions to ensure that that is done, and we urge the Government to ensure that it happens as soon as possible.
  We approach the debate today in a continuing spirit of bipartisanship and support of the Government's reaction to the crisis. However, I would like to pose one or two questions, and I hope that the Secretary of State for Defence will be able to respond to them. First, will he assure the House that where—as in the case of bin Laden—incontrovertible evidence may become available identifying other terrorist organisations or states sponsoring terrorism, the Government will take a similarly robust stance?
  What is the Government's current position in relation to Iraq? For years, the regime has been publicly condemned as a major sponsor of terror and a constructor of weapons of mass destruction. Now, suddenly, we hear little or nothing about it. Do the Government support a course of action aimed at eradicating the virus of international terrorism within Iraq, and could that be part of a second phase in the fight against international terrorism?
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is evidence that Iraqi intelligence was involved in the first attack on the World Trade Centre in 1993? Will he continue to press the Government to

  701
  reveal their attitude on whether Iraq has been actively supporting bin Laden and his terror network since that time?
  Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House of that, and I ask the Secretary of State for Defence to respond to what he has said when he replies to the debate.
  I have another question to ask. The overthrow of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan is apparently now a firm objective of the impending action. Will the Government tell us what specific plans there are to fill the political vacuum that will ensue, and who they see as the best alternative likely to achieve stability and peace in that region?
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Could we be clear exactly what the attitude is towards Iraq? Some of us guess that if the Iraqi Government had had much to do with this, it would have leaked; but the truth is that many Iraqis might have been recruited to bin Laden's evil organisation by 10 years of bombing and sanctions. That has to be faced.
  Mr. Ancram: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is aware that I am not privy to all the intelligence information that is available to Ministers. The question that I am asking is: if there is incontrovertible evidence linking the Iraqi regime with acts of terrorist atrocity, what action will be taken? If we shy away from action, we begin to undermine our own case in the fight against international terrorism.
  Given the escalation of the international terrorist threat, what plans are there to increase the resources available to the intelligence agencies? As the Secretary of State for Defence will be aware, the agencies' heads have described their current and prospective funding position as "challenging", and have flagged up the possibility of being unable to maintain current service levels, let alone meet new challenges. The House recognises the fact that the events of 11 September showed the tragic human cost that can result from inadequate intelligence, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to reassure the House on that important matter.
  We debate this serious situation today still in what might be called the period of preparation. That is a time when patience is called upon, and cool nerves are vital, but also a time when our determination and resolve to take on the enemy, international terrorism—that virus of evil inhumanity—and to destroy it, must be strengthened and entrenched. As the Foreign Secretary said, we know that we face an enemy with a level of viciousness and a lack of accepted human values that we have never faced before. Three weeks ago, that enemy struck America with what were in effect human flying bombs, and we must keep that image ever before us. If we do not destroy that enemy, tomorrow it could be us.
  We must not waver in our readiness to take part in the fight. We owe it to America for the way in which its people have always stood by us in our time of need—but our motivation is greater than that. This is also our own fight for our own freedom and security. If we truly believe in a world free from terror, and in our children's right to
  702
  a life free from the blackmail of terrorists, it is a fight that we must engage in, and win. That is the challenge of what the Government face, and again today I offer them our support.
  Mr. Speaker: I must inform the House that, in order to give as many Back Benchers as possible an opportunity to speak, there will be a limit of eight minutes on Back-Bench speeches.
  11.29 am
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was fastidious in referring to his visit to Israel last week. He did not refer, however, to the rite of passage that he went through and which all British foreign affairs spokesmen undergo when they visit Israel under Likud Prime Ministers. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House had his meeting cancelled because he rightly visited Har Homar. When I was shadow Foreign Secretary, Mr. Shamir, then Prime Minister, cancelled a meeting with me, which led Abba Ebban to tell me that a meeting with Mr. Shamir and no meeting with him were of equal value.
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been vindicated in respect of what he said in his article and when he was in Israel. Since last week, the President of the United States has said that he believes that there should be a Palestinian land, as did my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister two days ago at the Labour party conference. However, I believe that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made an error regarding what appeared to be a comparison of the terrorism that is taking place now in the middle cast with that which brought about the destruction of the World Trade Centre. I believe that there is a very great difference.
  All terrorism, in any circumstances, is utterly to he condemned, but there are acts of terrorism that have a political objective. Even though the terrorism may be evil, the political objective may be valid. When Menachem Begin, as a future Israeli Prime Minister, ordered the bomb attack on the King David hotel in Jerusalem, he was seeking to establish the case for a Jewish state. When Mr. Shamir, also as a future Prime Minister, participated in the murder of the United States mediator Count Bernadotte, he did so for the same reason. When Yasser Arafat was involved in terrorist activity in the middle east—he was undoubtedly involved in such activity for a long period, before he learned better ways—his aim was to establish the case for a Palestinian state. As it happens, I agree with the objectives of both those groups of terrorists, although I totally oppose the terrorism in which they were involved. Even the unspeakable massacre in Srinagar this week, which both sides have rightly condemned, took place nevertheless within the context of the Kashmiri people's case for a right to speak in their future. The method was utterly wrong, but the objective was understandable and valid.
  There is a difference between all those acts, which are based on methods that are utterly to be condemned but have objectives that are sometimes to be supported, and what took place in the United States three weeks ago. There is a very great difference indeed between terrorism with an objective—however wrong the terrorism itself may be—and terrorism that is carried out simply for the sake of terror, which is what occurred in the United States

  703
  and could happen elsewhere. That is why our Government, together with the United States and the international coalition, are absolutely right in deciding that they have to take action to extirpate the cause of that terrorism and, if possible, to bring to justice those who were responsible. That means military action. It would be foolish of us to deny that such action is necessary, although the Government are perfectly right to say that it must be proportionate and that civilian casualties must be avoided wherever possible.
  Belatedly, the west has come to realise that the existence of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan is an affront to all human values. It is sad that this terrible series of events in the United States should have brought to the forefront the need to deal with that fact. In my constituency, there are refugees from Afghanistan who have undergone the most terrible experiences in order to flee from the Taliban. They would be the first to want to go back an Afghanistan that was peaceful and law abiding, and no longer treated women as chattels—the treatment received by the women who fled to my constituency.
  I want to address one more comment to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and refer to the lessons learned in my constituency. Like most hon. Members, I regard my constituency as my university, as it teaches me about all these issues. I deplore more than I can say the stupid, ill-informed remarks made today by Lady Thatcher. All the messages that I have had from the many Muslims in my constituency are of total condemnation of the atrocities that took place in the United States. It is an ill reward for their condemnation that they have been the victims of attacks such as that on the Eileen Grove mosque in my constituency. I welcome the fact that the Government are taking action to deal with the problem. Those racists who have attacked Muslims in this country—peaceful, law-abiding people who support our Government's policy—are not bin Laden's enemies, but his squalid disciples. There can be no excuse whatever for not dealing with such people, which is why I shall support the legislation that the Government plan to introduce.
  Sometimes, there is a sanctimony about expressions of unity in the House, but on this occasion what has been said on both sides of the House has been completely sincere, is utterly necessary and should hearten the Government and the international coalition in the action that they are rightly planning to take.
  11.37 am
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Prime Minister rightly began his speech by reminding us that the events that have brought us here resulted in the death of 7,000 people from 70 nations in circumstances of unimaginable terror. Although it may be three weeks or more since the events took place, today we once again share in the sorrow of those who have been bereaved and bear their grief with them.
  The passage of three weeks does not alter the fact that the events of 11 September were a deliberate and calculated atrocity that was conceived in cold blood, planned with skill and executed ruthlessly and regardless of the consequences. The cause of the attack was not American foreign policy, but an amoral disregard for human life. It is grotesque to suggest that a four-year-old girl, making her first and only flight in an aeroplane,
  704
  should somehow bear responsibility for the actions of a Government whom she was never allowed the chance to grow up and vote either for or against. No grievance, however real or perceived, justified such slaughter of human life. To echo words that we have all used in the past three weeks, the violence was imprecise and disproportionate and was designed to maximise civilian casualties—the very reverse of the criteria for military response that the Foreign Secretary set out in his speech at his party conference and again in the House today.
  I hope that we will put an end to some of the crude anti-Americanism that has characterised comment here in the United Kingdom. I have criticised American foreign policy in the House, as have many other hon. Members. However, the sort of crude anti-Americanism that we have seen in some quarters is wholly unjustified. In the period immediately after the atrocities, people were anxious that the sense of outrage and alarm might provoke the United States into immediate, retaliatory action. Indeed, that is what the terrorists hoped for. As some have already said, it is a measure of the maturity of the Bush Administration that no such thing has happened. The American constitution, let us remember, is composed of checks and balances, and it is clear that in the last three weeks those checks and balances have been at work.
  I agree with the Foreign Secretary that there is no need for an express resolution from the Security Council authorising a particular military response. Article 51 of the United Nations charter, and resolution 1373—passed last week, on 28 September—authorised the use of force in self-defence. As the Foreign Secretary said, the resolution is unique: never before has there been a resolution, mandatory, imposing obligations on all members of the UN under chapter 7.
  If we have a reasonable apprehension that there is the possibility of a further attack, pre-emptive action is justified in international law, whether carried out individually or collectively. As I have said before, I believe that the United Kingdom should make its forces part of that military response. We have an interest in doing so; but the United States is our ally and we have treaty obligations under article 5 of the treaty establishing NATO.
  As the Prime Minister also made clear, military action must be based on intelligence and must have clear objectives. Before today, the Prime Minister had said that there was incontrovertible evidence of the involvement of Osama bin Laden. The 19 countries of NATO reached a similar conclusion, abandoning the conditional support that they had initially given in favour of unequivocal support. Today the Government—I think, uniquely—have decided to publish some parts of the intelligence. I do not recall intelligence of this kind being published, for example, at or about the time of the Gulf war. This is a unique occasion, and the House should understand that.
  Only part of the intelligence is to be published. Why? Publishing all of it might well put at risk the lives of the people who provided it; but a more pragmatic and perhaps rather more cynical consideration is that such action might prejudice the availability of a valuable source in the future.
  In so far as the whole evidence has not been published, I do not shrink from saying that we must take the Prime Minister and his colleagues on trust. The Prime Minister has gone to the country and he has come to the House of

  705
  Commons; and he has given his word that that is the case. The consequences for the Prime Minister and his Government, were that not to be so, are incalculable, and I therefore have no difficulty in taking the Prime Minister on trust in this matter.
  Chris Grayling: If I understood correctly earlier, the leader of the Liberal Democrats argued for a greater demonstration of the intelligence information. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what his party's position actually is?
  Mr. Campbell: It is nice to see that the spirit of non-partisanship is surviving the whole of this morning's debate.
  As my right hon. Friend said, if further evidence can be published without prejudice, it should be published. The Prime Minister accepted that himself when the point was put to him. I am saying that in the absence of publication of that further evidence, relying on the faith of what the Prime Minister has told the country and the House I am prepared to take the Prime Minister on trust. I do, however, raise a question to which I am sure the Foreign Secretary has addressed himself. That may not be enough for some members of this coalition, and it may be that some form of independent scrutiny or verification will be required. No doubt, along with his officials, the Foreign Secretary will give some consideration to how intelligence beyond what has been published here today may be made available to those whose presence in the coalition is of such fundamental importance.
  The Prime Minister also made it clear that, if military operations were embarked on, it was axiomatic that there must be clear aims. I accept the aims set out in the Prime Minister's statement, in which he said:
  "We must bring bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders to justice and eliminate the terrorist threat that they pose, and we must ensure that Afghanistan ceases to harbour and sustain international terrorism. If the Taliban regime will not comply with that objective, we must bring about change in that regime to ensure that Afghanistan's links to international terrorism are broken."
  That is a clear statement of objective justifying military action.
  It is also the case that the coalition might well be under strain if action taken were other than proportionate to need. Let us try to deal with that word "proportionate". "Proportionate" does not mean "equivalent". Indeed, I think it was the Foreign Secretary himself who said, emerging from a meeting of European Union Foreign Ministers, that we were talking about "proportionate to need"—and "need" means no more than what is necessary to achieve the aims set out by the Prime Minister in his statement, and to neutralise the threat. The maintenance of the coalition will undoubtedly require careful observance of those principles. Of course, this also means—in contradistinction to what was done by those who perpetrated the atrocities—avoiding civilian casualties as far as humanly possible.
  Ann Clwyd: The Prime Minister impressed on us the importance of humanitarian aid and the need to ensure that it is in place. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that women in Afghanistan are particularly at risk? They are already subject to cruel,
  706
  inhuman, degrading treatment by the Taliban. Many are already war widows. In circumstances in which people are fleeing in fear, they will be more vulnerable than anyone else and should be given particular help.
  Mr. Campbell: It is a sad fact of the conflicts in the Balkans, more recently, and also in Afghanistan that civilians, and women in particular, now bear the brunt. The hon. Lady has a long and distinguished record of bringing such matters to the House's attention and I agree with all that she has said.
  If we are to make forces available, we must also make resources available—resources to meet the cost of the massive humanitarian effort required to feed, clothe and shelter millions of refugees throughout the region. I think we have a moral obligation to do that, but we have a pragmatic compulsion as well. Instability in the region would hardly be in our interests, and instability in a Musharraf Government unable to cope with a sudden influx of refugees would be directly against our interests.
  Geraint Davies: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that our aims and objectives should perhaps go beyond getting rid of bin Laden and providing aid? Should we not aim to renew and reconstruct Afghanistan? Will not and should not the price of peace be much greater than the cost of war?
  Mr. Campbell: I am coming to that, but I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman.
  The Musharraf Government may well be at risk unless we provide the necessary resources for the humanitarian effort, but millions of Afghan citizens will not survive unless we do. If a military response is justified, a parallel humanitarian response is obligatory.
  We should even now be considering how Afghanistan can be brought back from the clutches of the Taliban. I think the principle we should adopt is this: how can we best assist the Afghans to clean up their own country? As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) said, it would be too simple just to pile resources into the Northern Alliance. The suspicion and envy of the Tadjiks in the north and the Pushtuns in the south is legendary, and it would make no sense whatever for us to substitute for the Taliban a different kind of civil war. I was encouraged by the extent to which the Foreign Secretary acknowledged that there may well be a role for the United Nations in the reconstruction period to which the hon. Gentleman was referring. It might at least be worthy of consideration on another occasion whether this is a suitable opportunity for a UN protectorate.
  The Home Secretary is to introduce new measures in response to the events of 11 September. I have no doubt that there will be points of agreement between him and us. The extradition process can be torturous, as we discovered in the case of General Pinochet. Surely it is not beyond our wit to fashion a system that is both fair and expeditious. If these are the principles that guide the alternative proposals that are to be made, they would most certainly have our support. In this area, justice delayed is justice denied, as much as in any other area of the law.
  Mr. Richard Allan: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that we still face a fundamental ethical dilemma in responding to the many

  707
  extradition requests where there is evidence that suggests that the individual we extradite may be facing torture and summary execution in the country to which he or she is returned? There are many examples. We should not avoid the dilemma. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the best way to resolve the dilemma is to strengthen the procedures of the international court? That would allow us to hand over individuals to a fair trial rather than the place where we would otherwise send them.
  Mr. Campbell: If the international court were in existence, I would be wishing it to exercise its jurisdiction. It is not in existence because an insufficient number of countries have been willing to ratify the statute that would establish it. I cannot fail to point out that the United States is one of those countries. Perhaps the events of three weeks ago will cause some reconsideration of the United States position in that matter.
  If we are to believe what we read in the newspapers, the Home Secretary appears to have backed away from introducing compulsory identity cards. If the proposal were to come before the House, I and others on the Liberal Democrat Benches would require considerable persuasion that it was necessary action to take.
  We will examine with particular care any proposals that have the potential to penalise genuine asylum seekers. The pathetic men and women who try to cross the channel in inflatable rubber dinghies seem to me to be improbable terrorists. As we now understand, terrorists are much more likely to arrive in London in the first-class cabins of scheduled flights.
  I, too, will say a word or two about the middle east. Israel has an unchallengeable right to her existence. However, as the Prime Minister said to his party conference, the Palestinians have a right to justice and to land. That has been echoed by the Bush Administration. We do not need another UN Security Council resolution to implement that approach. Resolutions 242 and 338 set out these principles, as does resolution 435 which condemns the policy of settlements in the occupied territories.
  We must recognise that when the Foreign Secretary and I argue that resolution 1373 gives authority for actions of the sort that we are contemplating, there are some people who ask, "Why do you see more efficacy in some resolutions than others? Why do you attach more importance to the implementation of some resolutions rather than others?"
  The continuing dispute between Israel and the Palestinians was not the cause of the terrible events of 11 September, but it is used as an excuse. If we are determined to eliminate or at least diminish the terrorist threat, let us ensure also that we eliminate the excuses for terrorism. I thought that the Foreign Secretary was right to visit Iran. I would not necessarily have chosen the language that he used in his article, but those of us who know him and those of us who have had robust political differences of opinion with him were outraged on his behalf when an official of the Israeli Government saw fit to describe him as anti-semitic. It was a disgrace. I hope that he received the apology that he undoubtedly deserved for that intemperate language.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: I share and wholly endorse the view that the right hon. and learned
  708
  Gentleman has expressed. Those of us who wish Israel well regret very much that it should try to deal with the Foreign Secretary in the way it tried to deal with his predecessor when he said exactly the same sort of thing over the question of settlements.
  Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman's intervention speaks for itself.
  We must accept that any military action, however proportionate to need, runs the risk of casualties. I do not shrink from asserting that we should always be calculating and cautious about putting the lives of other people's sons and daughters at risk by inviting them to take military action on behalf of the United Kingdom. We should never make such a decision unless we are satisfied in the exercise of a considered judgment that it is necessary. It seems that it may be necessary now. It appears that our armed forces may truly have to be committed not only in the short term but in the long term. In either case, they are entitled to know that they go not only with our gratitude but with our prayers.
  11.56 am
  Mr. Chris Mullin: I welcome the statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, which I thought was balanced and reasonable. I welcome especially the prominence that he gave to alleviating the plight of the Afghan people.
  I accept that the perpetrators of the unspeakable atrocities in New York and Washington must be found and brought to justice. Their funding and other networks must be wound up, and those who harbour them must be obliged to hand them over. If that leads to the fall of the Taliban, no one will be happier than me. The danger that the lunatics will strike again is real and it must be faced.
  On the plight of the people of Afghanistan, I say to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and to anyone who has any influence in this situation: have mercy upon the people of Afghanistan, who during the past 22 years have endured the unendurable. Our immediate priority should not be to start bombing anybody—let Osama bin Laden stew for a while—but to ensure that food and health care is available to the 6 million, 7 million or however many millions of people whose plight is so desperate.
  I welcome the restraint that has been shown so far, but nothing will do more to undermine the international coalition that is being so painstakingly assembled than the sight on our television screens throughout the winter of starving people in Afghanistan. As the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said, nothing will do more to undermine the stability of Pakistan than playing host to hundreds of thousands or millions of people who are starving on its doorstep, and who may not sit idly by while they are starving.
  Secondly, as I said in my intervention on my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, we must not abandon the people of Afghanistan to the tender mercies of the warlords, the so-called Northern Alliance. They had their chance. They occupied Kabul. It was their inability to stop feuding and their complete lack of interest in the welfare of their people that led to the rise of the Taliban.
  I was glad to hear what my right hon. Friend said about considering the possibility of a UN protectorate. In my view, that is the way forward. A protectorate was applied for a period in Cambodia, but not for long enough. The

  709
  UN left a little earlier than it should have done. However, that protectorate made a big difference when Cambodia faced the same sort of chaos as is now being faced by Afghanistan. A protectorate has also been applied in East Timor. In my view, it is the model for post-Taliban Afghanistan. There is a history of short-termism and cynical politicking in the relations between the west and Afghanistan, which have led to the present state of affairs. We must start thinking about the longer term.
  Thirdly, we should not start what we cannot finish. I heard Henry Kissinger on the radio the other day saying—and he should know—that Americans do not always think through the consequences of their actions. He can say that again. We do not have to think back very far to the encouragement that was given, and perhaps the support, in the wake of the Gulf war to the uprising by the Shia people in the south of Iraq, who were then abandoned to the mercies of Saddam Hussein. By God, they were butchered.
  At various times in the past, in both Iraq and Iran, attempts have been made to encourage uprisings by the Kurdish people. Then the line in Washington changed, people there got bored, their attention wandered elsewhere and other priorities arose, and the Kurdish people were left behind to be butchered. I do not want to see our Prime Minister, who has handled himself magnificently so far, being forced to justify the unjustifiable in the months to come.
  I shall say a word about anti-terrorism laws, a matter to which we shall no doubt return, and in which the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which I have the honour to chair, will be taking a close interest. I have an open mind. If there are loopholes that prevent us from effectively fighting terrorism and which need closing, fine. However, there is in this country a long history of anti-terrorism legislation which has been rushed through in haste and repented at leisure. I hope that we will think carefully about any proposed changes.
  I heard someone—it might have been the Leader of the Opposition—suggesting that it might be a good idea if the Home Secretary had the power to exclude people solely on the basis of intelligence. I think back again to the Gulf war and remember that, solely on the basis of what was alleged at the time to be impeccable intelligence, many Iraqi people who lived in this country and in the main ran take-away shops were rounded up and put in Pentonville. There was talk of sending them back to Iraq, where God knows what would have happened to them. After it was all over, every single one of them was quietly released, because the quality of the intelligence was found to be so dismal. Some of those people were my constituents, so I am familiar with the precise detail in those cases. It makes me nervous when I hear such proposals.
  On ID cards, I am glad that we are not going forward too fast. There may be a case for ID cards. I do not rule it out, but the case must be made. Work has been done on the matter in the past. Under the previous Conservative Government, the Home Affairs Committee considered ID cards, and concluded that they would not work and would cost an awful lot of money. There may well be better things to do with £1 billion than introduce a not very effective system of ID cards. I could be persuaded, but I would have to be persuaded, as would many hon. Members in all parts of the House.
  710
  Finally, I shall briefly address the bigger picture, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife did a moment ago. As he said, the plight of the people of Palestine is not an excuse for terrorism. No one suggests that. As he also said, no one questions the right of Israel to exist. However, it is no use ringing up Ariel Sharon and telling him to exercise restraint for a few weeks while we assemble a fragile coalition, if we let him carry on as he has been doing as soon as the immediate crisis is over. We must recognise that the running sore in the middle east is the background to almost everything that has happened—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his time allocation.
  12.4 pm
  Mr. Andrew MacKay (Bracknell): I know that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who has just sat down prematurely, will understand if I do not pursue some of the interesting and characteristically thoughtful points that he was raising. I hope that the Secretary of State for Defence, who is in his place, will respond fully.
  I particularly agreed with the hon. Member for Sunderland, South when he said that, to date, the Prime Minister's actions have been magnificent. It is right that those of us on the Opposition Benches fully acknowledge that the Prime Minister's role, not just in this country but internationally, has been what the people of this country have a right to expect from their Prime Minister. We will continue to give him our full support in all that he is doing.
  In the few minutes available to me, I shall address the issue of international terrorism—the subject of this important debate, which has rightly led to the return of the House. If there are lessons to be learned from the dreadful events of 11 September, one of them must be that terrorism is wrong from wherever it comes. It can never be justified, least of all in a democratic country where every citizen has equal voting rights and where there is an independent judiciary, a free press and absolutely no excuse for resorting to violence rather than the ballot box. The House will realise that I am referring to a particular part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland.
  As the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the distinguished leader of the Ulster Unionist party, mentioned in his intervention, sadly the Provisional IRA and its political wing, Sinn Fein, have not, as we all hoped when the Belfast agreement was signed, given up violence for good or their links with international terrorism.
  The whole House was shocked and disappointed when the Colombian authorities arrested three members of the Provisional IRA in that part of Colombia which is controlled by the narco-terrorists from FARC. Among the Provisional IRA men who were arrested was the Sinn Fein representative in Havana. They were all highly placed within the movement. To my mind, that drives a coach and horses through the possibility that Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA will fulfil their obligations under the Belfast agreement.
  As the right hon. Member for Upper Bann said earlier, the process that we all enthusiastically supported, which was started by John Major and Lord Mayhew, tragically

  711
  has been entirely one-sided. For the men of violence, the terrorists—whether they are so-called loyalist or republican—it has been entirely take and no give. The House is aware that there has been no decommissioning, no handing in or getting rid of arms and explosives, even though more than 400 terrorist prisoners—so-called loyalists and republicans—have been released.
  David Burnside: Will my right hon. Friend, with his experience as shadow spokesman on Northern Ireland, comment on the double standard that has been running through the debate all morning? The Garda Siochana and the Royal Ulster Constabulary have evidence relating to the guilt of the Real IRA in the Omagh bombing which has every bit as much credibility as the evidence supplied by the FBI and the CIA, and which is persuading the Government to take military action. Is that not a double standard?
  Mr. MacKay: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. If I may, in the few minutes left to me, I will deal with it towards the end of my remarks.
  There are international links between republican terrorists in Ireland and other terrorists around the world. A prominent member of ETA was present at the weekend Sinn Fein conference. The House will be aware of the particularly unpleasant bomb attack in the Basque capital only two days ago, in which the court was blown up but mercifully only one passer-by was injured. Equally, there are close links with the narco-terrorists of the FARC in Colombia. If anyone has any doubts about the way in which they wish to destroy democracy they have only to consider the dreadful death of the Colombian Minister who was kidnapped, tortured and murdered in the past few days.
  I have a request for the Prime Minister and for the Secretary of State for Defence, who is to sum up the debate. As the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) said, we must treat terrorists equally. Terrorism is wrong. The House and the British people want from the Prime Minister the same robust response towards terrorism in Northern Ireland as to the dreadful events of 11 September. It is vital that those who are not prepared to renounce violence are treated in the only way that one can treat terrorists, which is to remove them, arrest them and take away their funds.
  This is a bipartisan debate, but the House will forgive me for saying that there has been a lack of enthusiasm about taking that action. Many of us, from the Dispatch Box and elsewhere, have pressed the Government to take a tougher line on terrorism. They have given terrorists the benefit of the doubt again and again and they have been let down. I am not critical that they have given terrorists the benefit of the doubt, but it must now be abundantly clear that they will not decommission their arms and explosives and that they are totally committed to gaining funds from criminal activity and destabilising our democracy. I hope that the legislation that the Home Secretary and other Ministers will put before the House in the next few weeks will allow positive action against terrorism in Northern Ireland.
  12.12 pm
  Mr. Keith Vaz: The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) is right to say that this is a bi-partisan day for the House. In my 14 years as
  712
  a Member of Parliament I do not recall a debate in which so many speakers on both sides of the House have been in agreement. Of course, we agree that this is a war on terrorism. This is not a war against Islam. It is not about faith, but about dealing with fanaticism and terrorism.
  I commend the work done so far by the Foreign and Defence Secretaries, the visit made by the Foreign Secretary to Iran, and the visit that the Prime Minister is about to make to the Gulf and Pakistan. Britain is not going to do this on its own. It is right that we should stand with the United States. America is our closest ally and friend and the attack on the World Trade Centre was an attack on all countries that wish to eradicate terrorism.
  Sometimes, however, I feel that we discover our friends in the Arab world only in times of crisis. It is extremely important that relationships are built up and developed over many years. The Arab states have enormous affection and respect for Britain and it is important for the Prime Minister to visit countries such as Oman to ensure that the support is there. The visit to Pakistan is also good. We should commend the role that India and Pakistan have played in unity on this occasion. The British Government should support the attempt by those two countries to work together to defeat terrorism.
  I wish to deal in particular with the British Asian community and with the words of Baroness Thatcher that were quoted in The Times today. She stated that she did not hear enough voices of condemnation from the British Muslim community about the events that occurred in New York. I do not know what she has been reading or to what programmes she has been listening. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the only representations and comments that I have heard from the British Muslim and Asian communities have been words of condemnation for what has happened in New York as well as total support for the actions that the Prime Minister and Government have taken. Similarly, on the words of Mr. Berlusconi—although I think that he retracted them—it is important for people to understand the background to what has happened and to acknowledge the enormous contribution that the British Muslim community has made.
  Tonight I shall go to Richmond in Surrey, which is the town in this country to which I first emigrated at the age of nine. Thirty one years after we emigrated to Britain, the country has changed. The Asian community has made an enormous contribution to the life of this country. I do not think that we would have imagined 31 years ago that some day someone called Hussain would be captain of the England cricket team. Perhaps in another 31 years someone called Patel may edit The Daily Telegraph.
  It is important that we do not look at the British Muslim community and visit mosques only at times of crisis. Dialogue, which hon. Members have every day with constituents of Asian origin, is extremely important. Asians feel that they are part of the mainstream in supporting the Government in what they are doing.
  We also need to support the Government's proposals, which were outlined by the Home Secretary yesterday at the Labour party conference. We need to introduce legislation to tackle religious hatred. Some of us have suggested it for some years. It is important to be tough on those who perpetrate acts of racial discrimination. We must look at the laws and the powers that have been given

  713
  to the Commission for Racial Equality to find out how we can make that body more effective. It should be doing much more work in this area, not only to bring communities together but to take a more proactive role in what is being achieved.
  I come to the House in total support of what the Government are doing. I am proud that we have a Prime Minister who is prepared to take a leadership role in international affairs. It is also important that the Asian community speaks out in a united way, as the Muslim community has done—Muslim leaders such as Zaki Badawi, lqbal Sacranie and Syed Pasha have all condemned what has happened.
  I look forward to the day when, like the Jewish community in Britain, the Asian community has a body that truly represents it—a sort of Board of Deputies—in which it can say in a united way what it has said separately through its various communities. That day will come and the House should push for such a development. In the mean time, in the current crisis we must work together in a united way in Britain and in the international community to ensure that the perpetrators of this terrorism are defeated once and for all.
  12.18 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: It is right that the House was recalled today. Hon. Members must remember that we have a central role to play in questioning, sustaining and fortifying our Government at this difficult time. I join hon. Friends on both sides of the House who have congratulated the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the others involved in the excellent work that has been done so far.
  Like the hon. Member for Dundee. West (Mr. Ross), I was in New York when this appalling attack took place and 300 of my colleagues from a firm with which I am associated were killed in the north tower. It was an unspeakable outrage, and the more so since the perpetrators of the crime hide behind a great religion that teaches, above all, compassion, love and respect for human life.
  There has been no lashing out. America has reacted with great strategic patience and skill and, above all, with calm resolve. The coalition that has been built by the partners is extraordinary. An alliance that includes Russia, the NATO countries, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and all the other Gulf states and that receives the acquiesence of China and Iran would simply have been impossible before 11 September. Inevitably, such an alliance will always be fragile, but, as the Prime Minister said, that fact will not prevent us from proceeding, diplomatically and militarily, with boldness and resolution.
  As the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said, at the heart of this catastrophe lies the Arab-Israeli conflict. I warmly welcome what the Prime Minister said about that in his speech to the party conference and again today. When the pieces in his kaleidoscope settle, Governments must truly see to it that we bring all our influence to bear on a resolution of that problem. Some 34 years of occupation and daily humiliation and harassment of an entire people have led to appalling and grotesque consequences. There have been
  714
  10 years of unconvincing peace process following the Madrid conference and there will be many more catastrophes unless the Governments of the world—particularly those of the United States, Britain and their European allies—put their minds to dealing with this problem.
  Our international influence depends on our ability to act in concert with others, notably the United States, Europe, the World Trade Organisation, NATO, the G8, the Security Council of the United Nations and so on. The Government need to use all the energies at their command to secure a just, lasting and, above all, honourable peace for both sides. As I said, I am encouraged by what the Prime Minister said today and I hope very much that the Government will proceed with great vigour and see to it that America does the same.
  Moderate Arab leaders are under increasing and possibly irresistible pressure. I hope very much that they will welcome the spirit of what is intended and push forward themselves even if they are entitled to be cynical about the process.
  Britain has a role to play and we need to be more confident about it. We can play a thoroughly worthwhile and important role both in our own right and as a trusted ally of the United States—an ally that is able to make a distinctive contribution, as the Prime Minister rightly has in contributing to the formulation of policy in Washington.
  I warmly welcome the Foreign Secretary's visit to Iran. It is far too important a country to ignore and, in the new realities, it has a role to play. We need to develop the relationship on a continuing basis, not only on our own account but with our partners in the European Union. At the same time, we must urgently develop and grow a more pragmatic, sensible, mature, lasting and meaningful relationship with Russia, so I am delighted that the Prime Minister has left to visit Moscow.
  Does the Foreign Secretary believe that the Foreign Office deploys enough resources to its middle east department? We are embarking on a long and drawn-out business, which will require increased commitments in an already very overstretched department.
  Defence will also require more money, and I hope that the Prime Minister will repay as of right the great debt of honour that he owes to the armed forces. In particular, we will need to spend more money on our intelligence services, to whom we should be very grateful and of whom we are very proud.
  Britain must take the chances offered by these events. The Prime Minister is right to say that the state of much of Africa is an affront to the world. If the world wanted to put that problem right, it quite clearly could. Britain has a unique role—standing as it does at the centre of the Commonwealth, the G8 and the Security Council—and we can develop a strategy with our partners and allies to try at least to deal with the problem in a co-ordinated way. It will be the job of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition to make sure that the Government press ahead with all those plans and that they do not simply slip off the agenda after a period of time in the face of pressing—albeit correct—local domestic difficulties.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said, terrorism knows no bounds. It is not defined by any ethnic group, so it is very difficult to fashion a strategy to deal with such a strange and

  715
  perplexing enemy. Broadly achievable military and political objectives are developing, but there will be no clear single or timely outcome. This campaign will not be defined by military action—although that must be an important part—and the only way to cope is by the Government and the United States working together through international co-operation and concentric alliances that are built on security, intelligence, diplomacy and economic and military efforts. All those elements must come together, not just in the fight against terrorism but in the resolution of the middle east crisis and, in particular, in dealing with the deep and abiding frustrations that have built up over the years.
  As an immediate start at the World Trade Organisation conference in Doha, I hope that our Government will press for a fairer deal for poor countries as a matter of the most profound importance for now and for the future. Meanwhile, I endorse the words of my hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. As British forces prepare themselves for almost imminent action—it cannot be long delayed with the advance of winter and the approach of Ramadan—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  12.26 pm
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: When the New York massacre took place, I was on a transatlantic flight. When I flew back to this country, it occurred to me that no one will again get on an airline flight—whether for a family holiday or a business trip—without a chill going down their spine as they recollect the images of the World Trade Centre and the aeroplanes going into it.
  This is a time when we need to show full solidarity with the Americans in fighting terrorism. I commend the firm stance taken by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister from the first in helping to put together a coalition to help the Americans to fight terrorism.
  I do not want my family to get on a flight in future and wonder whether they will get off it, and I do not want those constituents who work in tower blocks to wonder whether they will be able to go home. We need to ensure that the threat of international terrorism is dealt with.
  I wish to make a few comments about several issues. I want to refer to the Muslim community in this country, to the calls made by many people for evidence to be provided about Osama bin Laden's involvement in terrorism and to the concern about the refugees and civilian casualties that may occur in Afghanistan.
  I commend the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) about the Muslim community. We must do all we can to explain that this is not a war against Islam or against Muslims any more than fighting the IRA is a war against Catholics or fighting the UDA is a war against Protestants. We face a small group of fanatics who happen to be based in Afghanistan, but all religions have their fanatics.
  I welcome the efforts made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to bring Iran into the alliance. It is important that we receive support from our allies in other Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia, as well as from countries with which we have had less cordial relations in the recent past. It is also important that we send a clear message to Britain's Muslims that we are proud of them and their contribution to our country.
  716
  I was the Minister with responsibility for race equality for four years, and almost weekly I met members of various Muslim groups. I know them and their leaders well. I was delighted by the meeting that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister held in Downing street with many Muslim leaders and the clear messages that were given to them. They were also able to state their condemnation of the atrocities that took place in the United States.
  I strongly welcome the announcement of new laws against religious violence and harassment and new laws to deal with incitement to religious hatred. I also welcome moves to sort out some of the problems in our extradition and asylum systems. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will consider extending the Race Relations Act 1976 to protect Muslims from religious discrimination. That was being considered in the Home Office and I hope that there will be an announcement in due course.
  I welcome the Prime Minister's decision to publish some evidence today. That is important. I also welcome the endorsement of the background to that by the leaders of the Opposition parties who have been briefed on the details. The Taliban would have us believe that they will hand over Osama bin Laden if America can prove that he was involved in the New York massacre. I suspect that no matter how much evidence were to be offered, it would not be enough. It beggars belief that the Taliban, who oppress women, persecute homosexuals, feed their finances from the sale of drugs, behead adulterers and massacre their opponents, should pose as civil liberties lawyers when it comes to defending a mass murderer such as bin Laden.
  What also worries me is the attitude of some commentators in this country who have demanded the publication of all the evidence, including intelligence information. I am worried by those who question the validity of a western response without proof, as though they expect telephone transcripts, video tapes, documents and witnesses who can be cross-examined. The British and American Governments are justified in maintaining some secrecy in protecting intelligence sources. Sharing background information with Opposition leaders was useful and important, but it is not necessary to share it more widely.
  Based on available information, there is a need to act soon. The Government must know that they have the support of Parliament and the British people for that action. The Taliban's demand to examine the evidence should be seen for what it is—a cynical prevarication. We know that the Taliban are sheltering bin Laden. We know that bin Laden is a major terrorist and the prime suspect for financing the mass murder in New York. The Taliban must accept the consequences of helping terrorism and the British Government should support all reasonable action by the Americans to deal with it and to bring bin Laden to justice.
  What struck me when reading some recent articles in our media is the fact that some people in this country are anti-American. It worries me that anti-Americanism has sometimes been the anti-semitism of the left, sometimes unreasonably, unjustifiably and based merely on prejudice. It is time to recognise that we must give some meaning to the deaths in New York, and that meaning must be to tackle and end the threat of international terrorism.

  717
  It occurred to me this morning as I realised that it was poetry day that the words of the American poet, Archibald MacLeish, are right for us to recall as we think of those who died. He said:
  "They say: our deaths are not ours, they are yours.
  They will mean what you make them.
  They say: whether our lives and our deaths were for … a new hope or for nothing is something for you.
  They say: we leave you our deaths, give them meaning."
  We have a responsibility in some measure to redeem the lives of those who died in New York. Ending the fear of international organised terrorism would give those deaths some meaning.
  12.34 pm
  Mr. Gary Streeter: I am pleased to take part in this debate and to make three points. First, I should like to place on record my strong support for the action being taken by our Government and our Prime Minister and by the American Government. It is right to take every conceivable step to bear down on the individuals responsible for this terrible atrocity. The Taliban regime in Afghanistan are despicable. They clearly harbour terrorists and sponsor acts of terrorism and are a legitimate target for our military response. I strongly support the leadership of President Bush and our Prime Minister at this time and commend them for many of the things that they have said and done.
  It is worth reminding ourselves that, in politics, actions speak louder than words. We have lived through a time in international politics when charisma, soundbites and rhetoric have become all important. President Bush was criticised for his response in the first 48 hours when he was clearly a man in shock. Who would not be in shock as the leader of a nation in which such atrocities had happened? He had received a poor press over here before 11 September and many people had spoken poorly of him. We now need to reappraise our opinion of him. His leadership has been exemplary. He has surrounded himself with the best people possible and is determined to do what is right. That is a refreshing change from leaders and politicians who fill our screens with their rhetoric. I am not in any way impugning the excellent speech made by our Prime Minister at the Labour party conference this week and I am not having a sly dig en passant. I am simply saying that I would rather have a president in the White House whose actions are determined to solve the problem than a president whose rhetoric is intended to make us feel better for a while. I support the steps taken by President Bush and our own Prime Minister.
  I also support the steps taken by the Secretary of State for International Development to make sure that humanitarian relief for the people of Afghanistan is handled properly. It is heartbreaking to see the women and children of that country suffer. Stories of military conflict throughout history talk about the soldiers and the leaders who send them into battle and about the consequences of success and defeat. We read very little about the women and children who are often the innocent victims of every conflict there has ever been. That applies now to the women and children of Afghanistan, and it is
  718
  right that we should do all we can to provide aid and to offer as much comfort as possible. That is important and I support the Government's actions.
  My second point is that, like several other hon. Members, I represent a constituency in which many service men and women live and work. Many of my constituents are marines or work for the Royal Navy and Plymouth has many fine defence facilities. Many of my constituents are already in the middle east preparing for some sort of military response or are on their way there and will be involved in conflict.
  Like many of my colleagues, I spend a lot of time with military personnel as they make up a large part of my constituency and I never cease to be impressed by their courage and professionalism. Those men and women know the horrors of war, but they also know their duty. I have spoken to people in my constituency in the past three weeks who know that their lives and bodies might be on the line over the next few weeks and are ready to step forward to do their duty on behalf of us all. I want to pay tribute to them and say that we in this place will think of them every day. We know that they will make us proud; they always do. Thank heavens for our excellent and professional armed personnel.
  As young men and women prepare to go and fight, it occurred to me that too many of us, especially in our younger generation, have taken for granted our essential freedoms and our democracy. We seem to live in a world where we do not think that we have to pay for anything. As young men and women go to the middle east, this is a reminder that there is a price tag for our democracy and precious freedoms. It is remarkable that there are young men and women who are prepared, possibly, to pay that price.
  I now come to my third and most important point. I represent a constituency with an ethnic minority population of 0.01 per cent., but I have spent a lot of time in the past few years, and in the past few weeks, meeting members of our Asian community and our Muslim community in this country. I want to say loudly and clearly from the Conservative Benches that this is not a war against Islam; this is not a war against Muslims; this is a war against a few despicable people who will go to any length to cause terror and destruction here in the west.
  I have heard nothing but condemnation of the terrible atrocity from the Muslims with whom I have discussed the issue in the past few weeks, so I want to align myself with those who say that we stand shoulder to shoulder not just with our American friends but with the Muslim community in this country. This is one of those moments when we can make a difference to the future. Many young British Muslims are internalising what is going on at the moment and asking themselves where their allegiances lie. By our actions and our language in the House, we can send them a very positive signal. They are as much a part of this country as any hon. Member. They are in their home. This is their country. We are committed to building a multi-racial, multicultural Britain in the 21st century, and it is right that Opposition Members make it clear that that is our commitment to those friends, brothers and sisters in this nation.
  We live in serious times, and it is important that the House rises to the challenge. We are fighting for democracy, and I applaud the Government for the steps that they have taken so far. We think of and pray for our

  719
  young men and women who are on their way to that troubled region, or those who are already there. Above all, through our actions and our words, it is vital that we use this terrible atrocity to build stronger community relations in this country, so that we can all look forward to a better Britain.
  12.42 pm
  Mr. Piara S. Khabra: I represent a constituency in which a large number of Muslims live. There are about 10,000 Muslim voters in my constituency. I have not met or seen any Muslim in my constituency who supports terrorism, but that does not mean that there are no individuals or groups who support terrorism, and I have seen some of their activities in my constituency.
  I should like to offer my condolences to the thousands of people who lost friends and family following last month's brutal terrorist action, which represents a challenge not just to the United States, but to democratic nations across the world. Nearly 70 nations, including India and Pakistan, lost citizens in the attacks.
  I have by no means been an uncritical supporter of the United States, especially in the light of some its foreign policy decisions. Too often, especially under the current Administration, the US has seemed to take the line that compromise with them means following their lead, or people get nothing at all. In the past year, America has acted in a dispiriting unilateralist way on issues such as the world criminal court and global warming, yet none of that, even by the furthest stretch of the imagination, can begin to justify the atrocity that the terrorists have committed. People who have said "I can see why this happened" are lending a dignity to those actions that they do not deserve.
  Nothing can justify the deliberate taking of civilian lives, and people automatically forfeit their argument when they turn to such acts of terror, but whatever the moral confusion of those who perpetrated the terrorist acts, we have not held the people of Afghanistan responsible for them—and we should not—nor have we tried to blame any religion, despite the attempts of some to paint the coalition's moves as an attack on Islam. Such people wilfully ignore inconvenient events, such as the fact that NATO went to war against a Christian regime in Kosovo to defend a Muslim minority.
  I am pleased that the coalition that is being formed and led by the United States and the United Kingdom has not simply lashed out and retaliated by, for example, the carpet bombing of Kabul. So far, the response has involved a careful assessment of the situation and a gradual and deliberate build-up of our forces. In a moving and symbolic gesture, the Security Council stood up, instead of raising its hands, in support of a motion condemning the atrocities as an unprecedented act. That reflects the rest of the world's willingness to literally stand up and be counted.
  That unity has been reflected in the co-operation of some unlikely sources, and it will he essential if we are to take the next necessary steps. The Taliban must, at the very least, be made to hand over Osama bin Laden, and we are right in using targeted force to bring that about. However, the actions that we need to take, and the lessons that we need to learn, are not just in some distant conflict zones, but here at home, where we have seen some of the activities of the terrorists. I have often raised my concerns
  720
  in the House about the threat posed by terrorists to the west's security and those who live here. Yet, too often, the west has turned a blind eye to terrorism abroad—for example, in Kashmir, where non-Kashmiris have committed terrible atrocities in the name of religion. We should address such issues not just for humanitarian reasons, but out of self-preservation. Acts of terrorism and the religious zealotry that often inspire them have a habit of spreading.
  So far, the Government's policies have tended to be too soft, and too much has been tolerated from those who support terrorism abroad and sometimes in this country in one form or another. We should, for example, be prepared to stand firm against the religious fundamentalists in this country who openly call for a holy war. The coalition that has been built up by the US and the UK should also learn from the mistakes that the west has made in the past when confronting an enemy overseas. For example, the Taliban are, in large part, a creation of the policies adopted by the US during the conflict between the Soviet Union and Afghanistan. The idea of jihad had almost disappeared from the Muslim world until it was revived, under American encouragement, following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The country was left full of weapons and the notion of jihad has spread far beyond the Afghan borders. Let us be cautious when choosing and arming our new allies.
  The fears of those who expected the United States to respond with an immediate show of force have not been borne out, and it is now time for us to concentrate on the responsible actions that we can take at home and abroad. We have already increased the aid that we are offering to the region, and it is important that we continue to work to avert the possible humanitarian disaster. We should not make the Afghan people suffer twice for the actions of their leaders. As a member of the Select Committee on International Development, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for International Development to consider that issue.
  We must also be responsible at home. Of course, none of us enjoys having our bags checked at the cinema or spending yet more time checking in at the airport, but if we are to prevent a repeat of the events in New York, we have to take precautions. Such inconveniences are a small price to pay for our safety, and they do not represent a victory for the terrorists.
  Our democracies are still standing firm. They will not be beaten down by cowardly acts. We should remain vigilant about the activities of racists in this country and abroad.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  12.50 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I was in California on the west coast of America on 11 September and I agree with all right hon. and hon. Members who support the measured response by the United States Government in the aftermath of the tragedy. The attacks caused the most severe destruction on mainland America since the civil war 140 years ago. The American people suffered a great shock and I was surprised by their measured response. By the time I left America on the following Sunday, virtually every house had the stars and stripes hanging outside or planted in the garden. There was a great determination

  721
  among the American people to resist the challenge, not only to them, but to the rest of the western world, to our values and our democratic way of life. Central to that will be the role that our forces play in that activity.
  The Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence said that action is necessary. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) said a moment ago, the campaign will not be defined by military action alone. There needs to be military action as soon as we can possibly identify targets that can be eliminated with the minimum loss of innocent lives. We must make it clear to the Government, particularly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that we will support the reallocation of funding that will be required to ensure that our troops can meet that commitment.
  I welcome the Defence Secretary's announcement that he intends to review the strategic defence review. That is right and proper in the aftermath of these horrific events. Quite clearly we will need to refocus our troops in order to meet the threat from international terrorism. That will need further funding, however, and I hope that the Minister for Europe, the right hon. Member for Neath (Peter Hain), will convey to the Defence Secretary that we expect some explanation from the Government as to how they will provide the necessary troops to meet the demands that will be placed on them shortly. Our troops are already heavily committed around the world. Overstretch is a popular word, but it illustrates the difficulty that our troops face in being involved in almost continuous back-to-back operations.
  In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) the Prime Minister said that there are no plans to call up reservists. Members expect the Government to share with us as soon as they can what specific plans they have.
  We shall have to move beyond looking at the military response to the threat from Islamic fundamentalism. A few days after 11 September, President George Bush senior said that while the United States had invested a lot of money in high-technology espionage, it had neglected human intelligence. He was absolutely right. One of the secrets of our success in Northern Ireland—if that is what it has been—is that we invested a great deal in human intelligence infiltrating terrorist organisations. That is where we must now redirect substantial investment. The United Kingdom is well placed to do that. We have the expertise—we have first-class people—and we have the experience.
  I now turn to the Muslim world. There is no doubt that the events of 11 September were the action of a tiny minority of Islamic fundamentalists. However, if there were 19 people on those aeroplanes those 19 people achieved more in a few minutes than an entire generation of communist Governments. They had attacked mainland America. So we have to address the serious issue of Islamic fundamentalism. The Prime Minister reminded us that bin Laden has said that killing Americans is a religious duty. It has been made absolutely clear on both sides of the House that this is not a campaign against Islam. Indeed, it relies for its success on building a coalition with the Islamic world.
  I salute in particular the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) who said that we must stand firm against the tiny minority of Islamic fundamentalists in this
  722
  country who are doing a great disservice not just to the rest of the country, but particularly to the Islamic community as they are undermining the public perception. It may be that the newspapers are giving them more coverage than they deserve, but they are getting that coverage.
  For the past five years I have been calling on successive Home Secretaries to take action against Omar Bakri Muhammad whose outpourings are offensive to the vast majority of people in this country, whether they are native British, Christian, Muslim, Jew or whatever. I was supported in my campaign by the Board of Deputies of British Jews whose then president wrote to me saying:
  "For some time the Board of Deputies and in the Jewish community have expressed concern about this individual and the activities of his organization. Nevertheless, it appears that he has been able to continue to orchestrate a campaign of harassment against our community and in particular Jewish students on campus, whilst claiming state benefits from this country."
  Why on earth is he still in this country? There are others like him, and they are not only abusing our hospitality and the freedom of speech for which this House has fought for generations, but they are polluting the minds of young, susceptible Muslims in this country. British Muslims were arrested in the Yemen—Lord knows what they were doing out there. We have to get to grips with the training camps that are operating here.
  I will support the Home Secretary when he brings measures before the House, albeit that it will be the third set of anti-terrorism measures in four years. For goodness sake, the time has come when judges must no longer be allowed to determine policy. Parliament must determine policy. At our briefing last week, for which I am grateful, one of my hon. Friends asked the Prime Minister to produce some judge-proof laws and there was a great roar of laughter. However, it is part of our problem. The Human Rights Act 1998 must not be allowed to stand in the way of the human rights of the great majority of people in this country who support the Government in their determination to eradicate this particularly pernicious form of international terrorism from our midst.
  12.57 pm
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: There is no doubt that the events of 11 September greatly affected us all. The mass murder was wicked in its intent and I join other hon. Members in saying that it had absolutely nothing to do with Islam and in sending our sympathies to the bereaved in their suffering.
  Since 11 September we have all been holding our breath, expecting the United States to act as it has done so often in the past—quickly and unilaterally. It is to the credit of the Prime Minister and others that they have held the line by going round the world establishing an international coalition. None of us would disagree with the aim of that coalition—the eradication of terrorism. That is in all our interests, not least for the sake of survival. I believe that that course of action has led to a desire for justice, not revenge. The fact that so many countries are committed to the eradication of terrorism has led to a much more mature debate. Instead of concentrating purely on the military option, the international community has also sought to address the humanitarian tragedy that is unfolding daily before us.
  Millions of people are facing imminent starvation and fleeing the major cities of Afghanistan. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) referred in

  723
  an intervention to the terrorism against women in that country. Some of us have raised that issue in the House in the past. It should be a source of great shame to us all that the world has looked the other way and ignored the suffering of those women. When the crisis is over, I hope that international attention will turn to the plight of women, not only in Afghanistan but in other countries of the world, and that we get rid of the nonsense that such things are done in the name of religion or of culture. Human rights are human rights and we should not deal with those who daily deny the human rights of others.
  The overwhelming priority must be the saving of the Afghan people—we have to get food, shelter and medicines into Afghanistan. In that way, we will win the people's friendship and trust. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said, whatever happens in the coming weeks, we cannot expose the Afghan people to yet another western-funded regime that is no better than the Taliban. A cursory examination of the so-called "Northern Alliance" reveals that many of its members are up to their murderous necks in the blood of innocent Afghans. Any future Government in Afghanistan must be founded on democratic values and on the restoration of civic movements and of law and order. That means a United Nations mandate.
  I do not think that it will be possible to eradicate terrorism unless we understand and, more importantly, address the deep-rooted alienation from which the terrorists derive legitimacy and support. The eye-for-an-eye brigade will level the charge of excusing mass murder against those who want explanations and understanding, but that is a nonsensical charge designed to gag those who want debate—well, we shall not be silenced.
  People must have noticed that the loudest applause during the Prime Minister's speech to the Labour party conference came when he acknowledged the festering sore that is the middle east. To the assertion that Israel wants secure boundaries, I reply that Palestinians want a state and it should not be beyond the wit of the international community to give them that.
  We have to stop ignoring Kashmir. The people of Kashmir have a right to determine the future of their state—the UN resolution has been on the books since 1948. Why do we not listen to the friendly voices in the Gulf who tell us that we are alienating millions of Muslims by constantly bombing the people of Iraq and starving them through sanctions? That is a cruel policy and it is time that it was lifted. Half a million Iraqi children have died in the past 10 years—that is not a price worth paying.
  I want the end of the Taliban. That is our common aim. However, bombing the poorest country in the world using cruise missiles at $1 million a time will not hold the coalition together or do anything to save the millions of starving Afghans.
  I want the people who committed that heinous crime to be brought to justice before the International Criminal Court. That means that the Americans have to come on board and abide by the decisions of the ICC. The world changed on 11 September, most of all for the United States of America. The Americans now accept that they are as vulnerable as the rest of us to such mindless acts. If we want security, we must use international solutions: that means the United Nations.
  724
  The subject on which I shall end my speech is one that could not be mentioned at my party's conference: national missile defence. One thing is clear: NMD would neither have detected nor have prevented the terrorist attack that took place on 11 September. However, it seems that President Bush remains determined to go ahead. Before the attacks, NMD was already having a destabilising effect on international relations. On 22 August, President Bush said that the United States was preparing to withdraw unilaterally from the anti-ballistic missile treaty.
  The Prime Minister has gained worldwide approval for his role in creating the international coalition. He has made much of our friendship with America, and it is true that we are her closest allies. However, he should tell his friends the truth. He could play an important role by withholding endorsement of NMD.
  National missile defence is opposed by the European Union, by most members of the United Nations and by 276 Members of Parliament. The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs advised against it, as have many others. It is not a defensive system; it is offensive and we should have nothing to do with it. The Prime Minister could help to make the world far more peaceful by telling the Americans that NMD is no good. NMD does not protect this country, it makes it a more dangerous place and exposes the British people to greater peril.
  1.5 pm
  Mr. Edward Garnier: These are difficult times. No one should underestimate the shock suffered by the United States and its citizens as a result of the terrorist outrages of 11 September; nor, simply because other countries' citizens, including our own, were killed in smaller numbers, should we forget that the crisis with which we now have to deal is truly international. It is international in terms of its repercussions for peace; for almost every domestic national economy and sector of it; for world trade, regional stability, diplomacy, military preparation and action; for the starving and for the rich; for those of faith and for those of no beliefs. That much is easy to say, because the problems are easy to describe.
  In times such as these, it is understandable that even the English language runs short of words—or perhaps it is more accurate to say that those of us with some knowledge of the language find it hard to do anything other than resort to cliché. However, I do not want any clichés that I use in my speech today to inhibit me from asking us to think a little about the role of the House in the conduct of our national affairs.
  Before doing that, I ask the Secretary of State for Defence, when he winds up the debate, to reassure us that the Government are not going to introduce compulsory identity cards in order to combat terrorism. I know that other countries use them and that many of us willingly carry means of identification. ID cards have their uses, but they are not an answer to terrorism, as the hijackers showed us on 11 September. Terrorism is countered in the mind of the individual and by public opinion at one level, and by intelligence and evidence at the other. Let us use the weapons that we have already on the statute book, under the common law, and in the alliances that we have and are now building before turning to such measures as ID cards, which hold a spurious attraction for the busy politician.
  ID cards are but fool's gold in the current crisis. Their only use would be to identify the remains of the innocent victims of the next attack, unless we prevent it through

  725
  knowing who our enemy is, where he is, what his strengths and weaknesses are, what are his numbers and where he next intends to attack. That takes intelligence, not ID cards. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the shadow Foreign Secretary, said, our intelligence services need better funding to carry out that work.
  I accept that in times of crisis any Prime Minister must be provided with the freedom to act quickly and effectively to protect the integrity of the country and its institutions and to safeguard its people. I applaud what the Prime Minister has said and done so far. I accept that not every decision that has to be taken can be taken following lengthy deliberations in the House or consultation with every interested party. I accept without question that when the Prime Minister says he has evidence against bin Laden that he cannot share with us in full, he is speaking the truth. The burdens on Prime Ministers at times such as these must be awful, knowing that they must take decisions that may well lead to young lives being lost or put at risk.
  A former Law Lord, the late Lord Pearce, said during the 1968 case of Conway v. Rimmer that in times of national emergency
  "the flame of individual right and justice must burn more palely when it is ringed by the more dramatic light of bombed buildings."
  Article 15 of the European convention on human rights permits a member state to take measures derogating from its obligations under the convention
  "in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with other obligations under international law."
  I hope that that is of some comfort to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth). However, there are limits beyond which a state may not go, even in grave emergencies. It is open to question whether and how far the normal restraints on Government must yield to the higher interests of the state.
  That is not a new dilemma. For many years, we have had to struggle with the proper approach to the contest between individual rights and the needs of Government. In the first and second world wars, a wide range of emergency powers was given to the Executive to make general regulations and to take administrative decisions restricting civil liberties. In the first world war, the Home Secretary could order the internment of anyone he considered of hostile association, and in the second he could detain without trial those whom he had reasonable cause to believe were hostile or had been involved in acts prejudicial to public safety. Draconian powers to restrict the free movement of individuals still exist under the Emergency Powers Acts of 1920 and 1964, but they have not been imposed at any other time of war since 1945, including during the Korean war, the Suez crisis, the Falklands war or the Gulf war.
  A terrible wrong has been committed and thousands of innocent people going about their daily lives had their existence snuffed out at the whim of a collection of evil fanatics. Yet more thousands of the victims' relations must live on with only the memories of their loved ones to cling to and, worse, their deaths broadcast time after time on the television. What effect all of that must have had on all of them is too horrific to contemplate; but
  726
  terrible though the events of 11 September were, no matter how far reaching the economic, political and social consequences of the outrages may yet prove to be, it cannot in all reason be said that we are facing—to quote another international definition of an emergency—
  "an exceptional crisis affecting the whole population amounting to a threat to its organised life."
  The political and administrative functions of government at federal, state and city level in New York, Washington DC and Pennsylvania continue, as do their equivalents more or less everywhere in the world, except perhaps in Afghanistan where they have not recently existed in any form that we would recognise or respect.
  With that in mind let us remind ourselves that there are no constitutional restraints on the assumption of emergency powers in the United Kingdom. The parliamentary and legal precedents do not make a constitutional distinction between those periods of war and national emergency when it may be justifiable to grant the Executive some special powers, and other periods when it would be less appropriate. We cannot under our constitutional arrangements guarantee against the indefinite prolongation of emergency powers, even by special majority. Many of the emergency powers assumed by the Government during the second world war were preserved or renewed for a number of years after hostilities ceased.
  We must do our duty as elected Members of Parliament, sent here to protect the interests and rights of our constituents, as well as the country we live in. The sheer size of this Government's majority may have made some of us forgetful, but to hold this or any Government to account or to criticise this Prime Minister for some of his more fanciful rhetorical excursions is not the same as spitting in church. We in Parliament are the only brake on Government power that the constitution recognises. Let us therefore set the limit beyond which the Executive must not be permitted to go. Let us carefully consider any Bills that are put before us and to the best of our collective knowledge, experience and common sense grant to the Government only those extraordinary powers which they can persuade us that they need.
  I welcome this and the earlier recall of Parliament. Now, at this time of crisis, we need to see the Prime Minister metaphorically, if not literally, chained by one wrist to the Dispatch Box, so that he and the Government are reminded of their relationship with the electorate. At this time of crisis we should not only do our duty to the electorate and our country in standing up for the rights of Parliament, but show the planners and perpetrators of the outrages of 11 September that parliamentary democracy matters and that parliamentary democracy can play its part in vanquishing terror.
  1.13 pm
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier) on an excellent speech. His central point about the need for the Government through Parliament to be accountable to the people is desperately important at a time when we risk jeopardising some of our fundamental freedoms if we get the balance wrong. When we seek possibly to make war, those same constraints on the Government of the will of the people and accountability to the public must apply.

  727
  Like many other Members, my constituency has a large number of Muslims. It is not only Muslims who are offended by any attempt to whip up disagreement between the Muslim community in Britain or, indeed, worldwide and humanity generally on this issue. There was an attempt to burn down a mosque in the neighbouring constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). I have attended that mosque and many of my constituents go there. I suggest that Opposition Members may like to consider whether they wish formally to make it clear that they dissent from what Lady Thatcher said. Her remarks were not only offensive but incredibly damaging to society, particularly in terms of building consensus about the need for action against terrorism which will command the support of all sectors of society, Muslims and non-Muslims. I have attended mosques where it has been made clear that the actions in New York were anti-Islamic and deserve condemnation by people of any faith. We need to establish that clear understanding of where modern Britain's interests lie. It is not in division between Muslims and non-Muslims.
  How do we respond to terrorism? I listened to a former senior United States diplomat who was responsible for negotiating parts of the nuclear arms control treaties among other things. He pointed out how within a short space of time it would be possible for terrorists to take possession of nuclear weaponry, not by missile delivery or even in such a way as to require missile defence to be deterred, but in a suitcase, and to destroy not 7,000 people but perhaps 700,000 or 7 million people. That is a profound point. We must make sure that our society can act firmly and destroy the capacity of terrorists to threaten every one of us.
  In a remarkable speech, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) rightly reminded us that it is obscene for a four-year-old child to die as a potential perpetrator of further hatred. What nonsense—what a vile, bitter view of this world. Every state has an obligation to defend its citizens, and a prime part of that is now defence against terrorism.
  I understand the need to take action to wipe out those who committed the crime in New York and those who support them, but I caution the Government. If we are to maintain this worldwide coalition that we will need not just for this one action but in the long haul, we must maintain the credibility of the coalition's actions. Therefore, we must give real meaning to the concept of proportionality—though goodness knows what it means after the events in New York. That means that when the Prime Minister and the American Administration rightly say that there is to be no attempt at revenge, they mean it.
  I have a letter from the father of a victim of the Lockerbie bombing. I have come to know him over the years. He says that he has lived through terrorism and does not want to see revenge post Lockerbie or now post New York. He is right. What we seek is, of course, justice. We also seek the capacity to stop terrorists. That is very different from revenge.
  We see the military mind move towards mission creep—what starts off as a neatly contained operation becomes something very different. I ask my colleagues on the Treasury Bench to think very carefully about the objectives of our campaign. Yes, the Prime Minister is entitled to support so long as we are clear about what we are trying to achieve. He in turn must be clear that he is
  728
  accountable for ensuring that the military are not allowed to go down that seductive path which takes us way beyond a proportionate and proper response into a world not only of vengeance but one which allows discordant voices to say to moderate Arabs, for example, "You are now backing the wrong side." We have seen a little of that in our handling of other issues in the middle east, particularly in respect of Iraq, and perhaps we now need to consider fundamentally the lack of success of the policies that we have pursued there.
  We must have a sense of proportion more generally. I am delighted that in this campaign against international terror we are talking about the inclusion of the Chinese and Russians. The campaign makes sense only if we bring on board such powers. We are not building an unconditional coalition. If in the desire to build a world coalition, we give up, for example, the right to raise serious issues, we fundamentally undermine the whole reason for building the coalition in the first place. Let me refer specifically to relations with President Putin, who is trying to move Russia forward. He is entitled to say to us in the west, "You never recognise the terrorist threat to my country from Chechnya." However, we would not be right to ignore the human rights abuses by Russian forces in Chechnya.
  If we are building the coalition, let us build it on the basis that we know what our objectives are. Let us recognise that our response has to be proportionate—it should not be about vengeance but about taking out the terrorists to protect us all and to guarantee the safety of our citizens. Let us not lose sight of the fact that what makes us different from the terrorists is that we will not sanction everything.
  I can remember when Governments who are our close friends allowed terrorists to operate in their name in places such as Nicaragua. Let us not forget that. Let us not forget that we cannot move back to a world of hypocrisy if we are to defeat terrorism. We will defeat terrorism by building a world of values. We should maintain that sense of values in everything we do.
  1.21 pm
  Mr. Simon Thomas: On behalf of Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party, I welcome the statements by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. I note with gratitude that there has been an inevitable but welcome cooling of language, particularly this week with the Prime Minister's important speech to the Labour party conference and his statement to the House today. It comes on top of the cool response so far by President Bush and the United States Government. I confess that, like many other hon. Members, I have been surprised by that cool response, but I am very grateful for it and welcome it. It is a tremendous credit to the United States level of democracy and to its Government that they have been able to respond in that way, to stay their hand to date and to build an international coalition to deal with these matters.
  We accept that there is a natural right to self-defence for any country and also a right under the United Nations charter, but I think it is fair to say that the actions being discussed go beyond that. The talk is about war, about international action against other countries. I make it clear that we would not support or condone the United Kingdom going to war against the Afghan people.

  729
  Both our parties accept that military action may form part of the dismantling of al-Qaeda and the network that has supported terrorist atrocities. We accept the evidence of bin Laden's guilt in previous atrocities, which in themselves would justify the taking apart of his network. We accept that, following the New York and Washington horrors, there is an implication that would demand that bin Laden and his associates be brought to international justice, but in trying to achieve that we must remember that the shedding of blood would be the fertiliser for further terrorism. The new world order that has been talked about so much recently cannot be built on blood. That is not bleeding heart liberalism. There is no example of terrorism or a terrorist movement being defeated by military action alone.
  I think that the Government accept that in the way they have talked so much about the wide coalition of states that need to take action. Now that we are talking more seriously and directly about how to bring bin Laden to justice, as the Prime Minister said in his statement, we must ask what the objectives of that action are. The first question that I put to the Secretary of State for Defence is whether all negotiations have been exhausted, particularly in the light of some recent movements coming out of Pakistan and Afghanistan. I am not clear whether the Government's aims still rest just with al-Qaeda as a movement, whether we are extending our military aims to the Taliban themselves, which I accept is a horrendous regime, or indeed whether the Government will listen to the siren voices who want us to extend military action to Iraq and even Iran, Libya and other countries that have undoubtedly sponsored international terrorism in the past.
  This then must be the opportunity for the United Nations. Any world order needs to be based on global governance and global policing. We already have that establishment: it is the UN. We have already had an important UN resolution on terrorism, but how much more powerful would it be if we could get a UN resolution supporting the military steps that the Government and the United States Government are discussing? That would surely bring on board other countries that are wavering over that action.
  It is worth recalling in that context that in allowing self-defence the UN charter also demands that countries going to war or considering going to war seek redress first in the International Court of Justice. Those international institutions have been under-used and undervalued in the past, particularly by some of those who are talking about a new world order, so the lesson must be that we must work with those institutions and international agreements such as that on Kyoto and the International Criminal Court and desist whenever we can from unilateral action. Of course, it is possible to have unilateral action that includes more than one partner.
  We accept that the difficulty is that the Taliban are not the recognised Government of Afghanistan. They are a usurping Government. Indeed, Pakistan hardly has a legitimate Government. Again I ask the Secretary of State whether there are discussions and thoughts to create a UN mandate for Afghanistan and possibly a UN protectorate to deal with the huge humanitarian problems that will flow from whatever action is taken.
  730
  Finally with regard to the United Nations, a vital question that was raised by the leader of the Liberal Democrats is why the evidence against bin Laden cannot be shared with the Security Council. It would send a clear message to the Arab countries about the way in which the Government seek to work. Is there any country on the Security Council that we do not trust to see the evidence on international terrorism? If we do not trust any country on the Security Council to see that evidence, our fight against international terrorism is over before it has begun.
  I have tremendous admiration for those who may be about to lay their lives down for this country and for international justice. I want their efforts and the risks that they are taking to be effective and to bring results. That is why I believe that United Nations involvement will be vital in the long-term aim that the Prime Minister set out in his speech to the Labour party conference. If we are to commit our forces in that way to settle conflicts and to fight terrorism, we must do everything at home to minimise the dangers to our own forces.
  On the day of the horrors in New York, an arms trade fair took place in London sponsored by the Government, at which arms were being sold to both sides in the civil war in Uganda, a war which we may now want to get involved in following the Prime Minister's new vision. There are obvious things that we must learn about our way of dealing with international conflict and the arms trade.
  As many hon. Members have said, it is not a conflict between civilisation and barbarism, between east and west. We have much more in common: our common humanity. We need to take the opportunity to condemn and ensure the elimination of attacks on Muslims, which I regret to say have occurred both in Wales and Scotland over the past three weeks. In looking at the legislation that the Government will introduce on such matters, both our parties will be totally open-minded on the way forward.
  I add only one warning, of which the Government must be aware. Despotic Governments have used accusations of terrorism against their opponents. Those opponents often come to our shores seeking asylum. We must be careful that we do not exclude such people who have been targets of state-sponsored terrorism.
  We need to recognise that only bread and dignity bring peace. Dignity may be restored if the outstanding issues surrounding Palestine are resolved. There has been a welcome move in that regard by the Government. The bread that we need to bring forth is the increase in spending on international and overseas aid. We still do not spend 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product on such aid, which we agreed to 25 years ago and reaffirmed in an international agreement in Rio in 1992. We need to uphold those international agreements. The £25 million announced today for humanitarian aid for Afghanistan, although welcome, will not, I suspect, be enough. In all our actions, let us feed bodies and minds, not hatred.
  1.29 pm
  Rachel Squire: May I join other right hon. and hon. Members in expressing my horror and outrage at the events of 11 September and my deep sympathy, as well as that of my constituents, the people of Dunfermline and west Fife, for all those who lost a loved one, a colleague or a friend on that dreadful day?
  Credit is due to the United States President and Administration for the manner in which they have resisted the pressure they must have come under to take immediate

  731
  retaliatory action and instead opt for considered short-term and long-term approaches. Like other hon. Members, I pay tribute to the key and pivotal role that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the UK Government have played in building and strengthening a global alliance, which rapidly formed to express its horror at what happened on 11 September.
  It is difficult to find something to say that has not already been said in the thousands, if not millions, of words that have been spoken in the past three and a half weeks. Therefore, in the limited time available I shall focus on just one or two aspects of the implications for defence and security of the events of 11 September. I join others in paying tribute to the UK armed forces, who have already played a role in events so far and look certain to do so in the weeks ahead.
  It is vital that international terrorism is combated by measures on a range of fronts. I welcome those that have already been taken to restrict the financing of terrorism, to share intelligence much more coherently and effectively, to co-operate in policing and to build a global alliance the likes of which we are unlikely to see again in our lifetimes. Although I recognise that there are no quick fixes or easy answers, I believe that action on all fronts is required.
  On defence, those who believe that a homeland policy is the answer are clearly wrong. No nation, however large its army, air force or navy and however massive its equipment, can singlehandedly take on this type of international terrorism and be effective. As Lawrence Freedman, professor of war studies at King's college, said in a newspaper article last month, the attacks of 11 September
  "challenge the western military ethos which is dominated by talk of precision strikes against military targets".
  I had heard the term "asymmetric warfare" before 11 September, but I now understand more clearly what it means. High-tech, super, lethal weapons count for nothing if one does not know in which direction to fire them and has no clear military targets or infrastructure at which to aim them.
  The United Kingdom needs to look again at its strategic defence review and what it said about dealing with such terrorist threats. We must look at the configuration of the rapid reaction forces and at the level and capacity of our special forces. We must consider the most appropriate attack methods when dealing with an enemy that deliberately targets innocent civilians and ensures that they are in the firing line of any military response.
  We are dealing with an enemy who pays no regard to the Geneva conventions. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said earlier, we are dealing with an enemy with whom we cannot negotiate because it seeks no rational political objectives, only the destruction and extermination of those it hates using violent means.
  We must also review our defence procurement to see what equipment, weaponry and logistical support we need to counteract international terrorism. We must look even more carefully at those to whom we export defence equipment and do our utmost to support the UN Secretary-General's call on Monday for tighter restrictions on biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. It is clear that the terrorists will use them if they can obtain them and transport them in a rucksack, holdall or suitcase.
  732
  The events of 11 September have implications for the operation of NATO. I look forward to the opportunity to discuss some of those implications with fellow parliamentarians from NATO member countries in the near future. I welcome NATO's decision that article 5 was relevant provided that evidence was received confirming that the United States had been attacked from outside. I understand that NATO ambassadors received that evidence this week.
  I also welcome NATO's recognition that it is a transatlantic alliance and that we must offer the US support in return for the support that it has provided to us over the years. However, NATO must accept that a monolithic military response to international terrorism is hardly appropriate and must consider the terms of the Washington treaty agreed in 1999.
  Like many who have already spoken, I hope that in the weeks and months ahead we shall continue to find new ways of working that will bring bin Laden and al-Qaeda to justice, bring food and shelter to the Afghan people, and result in the end of a brutal and oppressive Taliban regime and its replacement by an interim Government acceptable to all parties under the auspices of the United Nations. I hope that we shall see a better world, free from fear, oppression and poverty.
  1.37 pm
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I share the sense of many in the House at this time of seriousness, and I understand something of what people in Washington and New York went through. I welcome the humanitarian approach of the mayor of New York, who is reported to be giving caskets to some 5,000 people with some of the ashes from the remains of the World Trade Centre. I say that I understand it because I have had to officiate at funerals where the only evidence of a person's body was a wedding ring. Two lovely young women were killed with others in an indiscriminate attack on a hotel. When we are dealing with international terrorism, there is no difference between New York and Newton Abbey, or between Warrenpoint and Washington.
  We speak about tightening our laws, whereas it might be wiser if we were to implement some of them. Earlier in our debate, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said that, when in government, he had fought terrorism for four years. The then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Peter Brooke, admitted that the Government had not used the full rigour of the law in dealing with terrorism in Northern Ireland.
  We talk about our forces being called into action in the service of the free world, to free Afghanistan if necessary from the thrall of the Taliban. I trust that, in our humanitarian concern, we shall not just welcome Tommy when he is in action and forget him when he is at home, as we did after the Gulf war and as we have done, dare I say, in the case of members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, who have been cast aside as a sop to terrorism. Why do I say that? It is because Gerry Adams is on record as saying that even the new police service that we seek to devise in Northern Ireland will simply be treated the same as the RUC was if any Catholics join that force.
  We have to start being realistic in dealing with terrorism, wherever it comes from. I join those who condemn the attacks on Muslims as individuals and on

  733
  their mosques, and I support the leader of the Muslim community in south Belfast, who has gone on the record complaining about them. Whether the attack on the mosque in south Belfast was the work of a particular racist or a reaction to what happened in New York, it could easily be the result of an endemic violence which means that halls, churches and homes are attacked day in, day out by elements of the community who have grown up with a sense of lawlessness. Sometimes when people are brought before the courts one would almost think that the prosecuting police officers were the guilty ones, rather than the people in the dock. That is something that we have to face in implementing our laws.
  I am not doing now what I did when I tried to table a question asking a Minister what his interpretation of the law was, and was told that that would not be acceptable, because the courts, not Ministers, interpret the law. I said, "So that means that we who pass these laws here in Parliament don't know what we meant by them." We talk about tightening the laws, and I hope that when we do that we will be more explicit and will not simply provide a haven for barristers and solicitors to make more money out of disputations over meaning.
  We are speaking about humanitarian issues, but I note that not once during the debate have I heard a reference to the humanitarian workers who were already working in Afghanistan seeking to help impoverished people. Those workers are now prisoners of the Taliban regime, and they were imprisoned before 11 September. We must bear in mind those who pay a price when they seek to help people in some parts of the world. I understand that there are at least two people from the United Kingdom, some from Australasia and some from Germany, as well as several native Afghan citizens.
  I was interested to hear the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) say that the attack on the World Trade Centre was without purpose. I do not know where he has been, because it is significant that 11 September is a historic date, and bin Laden was aware of it. He was giving a message to the western world. If any of us minimise that we will not be keeping our eye on the ball as we deal with his intentions and those of the others whom he has gathered around him.
  I appreciate the calm building up of an alliance, but it is sometimes a little like our missionary enterprises in the Christian church, in that many good men pray that the Lord's will be done, but add, "Don't send me, send my sister." When things begin to go wrong, it will he a moment of testing. How many members of the alliance will stand together when the issues have to be dealt with? I have more trust in our own steel, and in that of the United States, to see through to the end that to which we have set our hands.
  Intelligence is necessary. We have been told that Washington was taken by surprise. I understand some of the difficulties of intelligence gathering, but I could not help but think back to my visit to Washington two weeks before the Shah of Persia was overthrown. Apparently, the CIA had known nothing about it, and his overthrow took them unawares. They knew that there was some agitation, but they did not think that anything would happen. However, an Iranian taxi driver in Washington told me a fortnight in advance that the Shah would be overthrown.
  734
  I wonder to what extent the difficulty has been not that there has not been enough intelligence, but how far bureaucrats and politicians—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I am afraid that time is up.
  1.45 pm
  Jeremy Corbyn: I apologise to the House because I will not be here for the winding-up speeches. I have to deal with a personal problem at that time.
  I welcome the fact that we are having a debate here today, but we should be slightly careful about parading British democracy all around the world, when this Parliament is almost unique in having no right to vote on the deployment of British forces anywhere in the world. That is done through the royal prerogative, by the Prime Minister. We should look a little more to our own parliamentary procedures.
  I listened with care to the speech by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), and recalled that he had rather strongly opposed General Pinochet being brought to trial anywhere in the world under any kind of international procedures, and then mounted quite a severe attack on the British judicial system. We should be careful. For good historical reasons, we have a separation of powers between Parliament and the judiciary—and that separation should remain. We in this Parliament have knowingly, freely and deliberately passed a Human Rights Act that brings the conventions on human rights into British law. I fully support and understand that. That includes in our law the prohibition of the death penalty, and it means that we should not deport anyone from this country to anywhere where they would face the death penalty. The same applies in any other country that has abolished the death penalty. It does not help our cause in opposing any terrorist act if we reduce our own standards and diminish our own laws.
  We should be careful about how we label organisations. Last week, as I came away from the Muslim welfare centre in my constituency, I was asked to do an interview for the South African Broadcasting Corporation. They asked me what my concerns were about civil liberties in this country. My reply was that I was concerned about the easy way in which organisations and people inconvenient to the current British need are labelled terrorists and condemned as such. I recalled that less than half a mile away stood, for the best part of 25 years, the offices of the African National Congress and the South West Africa People's Organisation. Successive Prime Ministers, and one in particular—although never Labour Prime Ministers—labelled those as terrorist organisations, but they now form the Governments of Namibia and South Africa, and President Mandela is now, rightly, a revered figure throughout the world.
  I attended Friday prayers at the Seven Sisters mosque in Finsbury Park last week, and there were 1,500 people there. Many of them were terrified of the abuse that they had received on the streets, and that their shops had received. They were terrified of the bottles thrown through windows and the way in which women had been abused on the streets for wearing Islamic clothes. Their whole religion had been denigrated because President Bush started off on 11 September saying things like,

  735
  "This is a war between civilisation and the rest of the world." I do not think that he had thought about what he was saying, but the danger is that such language, parroted by the worst aspects of the British media, becomes an open sesame for nasty racists on the streets of inner London to have a go at anyone whom they believe to be Islamic. As I was walking away from the Labour party conference I heard teenagers in Brighton, seeing somebody whom they perceived to be a Muslim on the other side of the street, start shouting "bin Laden" at him. That is the kind of dangerous harmful nonsense that goes on.
  No one among the 1,500 people at the mosque in Finsbury Park did anything other than condemn what happened to the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, and they did not want any more deaths. I had the impression that they were also concerned about launching a military attack on Afghanistan, which would not bring back any of those who tragically died in New York or Washington, but would result in civilian casualties and could unleash a chain of events in which this country would be sucked into an Afghan civil war.
  We have to think a little more carefully about the history of Afghanistan, including the west's support of the mujaheddin against the Soviet-backed Government in the late 1970s and early 1980s, its funding of the mujaheddin, the mujaheddin's spawning of the Taliban and the CIA's funding of the bin Laden organisation. Bin Laden used that money to build bunkers throughout Afghanistan. For all we know, he could have done the same in many other places. What goes around comes around. I hope that people in the United States, in their terror and understandable desire to see an end to any terrorist threat, think also about some of the regimes and friendships that they have spawned over the years, and the production and financing of the phalanx of organisations that currently exists.
  In the construction of a global alliance against terrorism, we should think a little more carefully about the human rights records and perceptions of some of the countries that are involved. When the Prime Minister travels to Moscow—I imagine that he is already on his way there—and meets President Putin this evening, I hope that he will convey the condemnation of millions of people around the world of the activities of the Russian army in Chechnya and of what it is doing to ordinary people there. When images of what is happening are translated into other parts of the world, many people are horrified, just as we are horrified by what happened to the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on 11 September. If we are serious about the rule of law and human rights, we must be very careful to condemn abuses of human rights, whoever commits them, whoever they are committed against and however uncomfortable or inconvenient it is for us to do so. If we are not consistent, we will, understandably, receive the charge of hypocrisy.
  When President Bush talks about bringing bin Laden or whoever else to justice, I try to work out what sort of justice he means. Successive United States Administrations have specifically ignored or condemned decisions of the world court that were inconvenient for them. For example, the United States refused to accept views on the mining of harbours in Nicaragua and questions about the validity of nuclear weapons. Specifically, it refused to sign up to the International Criminal Court conventions, which is one of the reasons
  736
  why the court has not yet been established. If we are such a close friend of the United States, cannot we use our relationship as a basis to persuade it that, in the interests of justice and of causing no more needless deaths, we must have an international rule of law and a proper international court at which criminals can be brought to justice? Cannot we persuade it that, instead of using the United Nations only for humanitarian aid—although God knows plenty of aid is currently needed—we must respect the fact that if we want a world order that is based on justice, a world body must administer it. I do not believe that the Pentagon or NATO can administer world justice. The United Nations provides the basis and principle that are needed.
  People around the world have many different views. Everyone is horrified at what happened—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  1.53 pm
  Mr. Keith Simpson: However else we define this act of terrorism—Ministers, other hon. Members and the media have used a wide variety of definitions—we must be aware that it has a political objective. The terrorists might be motivated by the desire to hurt people and there may be a criminal element, but if hon. Members fail to recognise that there is a political purpose, they will underestimate what these people are trying to achieve.
  A number of hon. Members have spoken about the failure or inadequacy of the western intelligence services. I shall not speak about those issues in detail, although many lessons must obviously be learned. Far more important is our underestimation of the international terrorists. These people were not idiots or some form of militant headbangers on cocaine. They carefully planned what they were going to do and achieved their objective. If they had not done so, we would not be here today. Let us not underestimate what they achieved. Without praising their actions in any way, I remind the House that they achieved a stupendous and successful first, as far as they saw it. They co-ordinated widespread international activity to crash two American airliners in the centre of New York and to bring down a world symbol, and they managed to land an aircraft on the centre of American military power, the Pentagon. Without the bravery of the passengers and crew on another airliner, they might well have taken out the White House. The international repercussions are enormous. Although many people are prepared to condemn these acts, we should all be aware that some men and women around the world are not only toasting what happened but thinking that the west is incredibly vulnerable.
  It gives me no pleasure to flag up my suspicion that the United States Government, the British Government and those of Germany and other countries were in full and absolute panic after what happened on 11 September. They had every reason to panic. Our national security had been directly breached in an unimaginable way and we could do nothing about it. It is a sobering thought that an American President has devolved huge responsibility and given to two senior American air force generals the right to shoot down any American or international airliner that might present a major terrorist threat, if they think that such action is required.

  737
  We must rethink our approach to the problem. I believe that the Americans are rightly in a state of shock. For the first time, the United States of America itself has come under direct attack. Yes, it has had terrorist incidents before, but it has now been attacked directly and in the most appalling way. It is no longer an island that is isolated from the rest of the world, and that will have a major impact on American foreign and defence policy. As a by-product, casualty limitation, which has become an honourable principle of war in the United States and in NATO, has now disappeared entirely. The United States is determined to bring the culprits to book and is now prepared to tolerate military casualties for the simple reason that 6,000-odd civilians died. Whether we like it or not, it will be acting in a more robust manner.
  One of the major lessons that we are learning is that, whatever the arguments in terms of morality, international relations and everything else, all western Governments—let me say that I endorse the actions taken by our Government—must not only think about how to stop what happened on 11 September from happening again, but hunt down the people who did it. If the perpetrators are not brought to international or national justice, other organisations will repeat the attacks. They will either commit a copycat crime, although that is probably unlikely, or do what other hon. Members have talked about and use chemical, biological or—God forbid—nuclear weapons. It is the task of our Government and security forces not to refight the last battle, but to think in conjunction with others about how to prevent any repetition of the attacks.
  Amid all the consequences of 11 September, an impact has been felt in the House of Commons on the two days on which it has sat during the recess. Not only have party politics on the whole disappeared and domestic politics been put on a back burner, but the Prime Minister rightly invited to No. 10 the leading members of the main Select Committees that are directly involved. I urge the members and Chairmen of those Committees to take the initiative. In the past—I speak as a former special adviser under Lady Thatcher's Government—Select Committees have all too often been seen merely as talking shops with little influence and impact. They were almost "annoying, but irrelevant". However, I believe that, following the Prime Minister's invitation, they have an important role to play, not least because I think our own public are worried about the future. They are not just worried about the fact that we may find ourselves involved in widespread military action; they are deeply apprehensive about future terrorist acts. With the best will in the world, our Government and the American Government—apart from taking some defensive steps—have not come up with a foolproof answer, and I do not expect them to.
  When Parliament returns, we shall need a major debate. As I have said, however, we should be in no doubt about this: 11 September was a major terrorist success, there are some very nasty people out there who wish to do a copycat, and it is our task to make certain that we support our Government to ensure that that does not happen.
  2.1 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: Last Tuesday, in a remarkable speech, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke for me and, I suspect,
  738
  many millions around the world. There were three reasons for that. First, my right hon. Friend was very clear, and very focused on what needed to be done to deal with the immediate emergency: that included taking the necessary and appropriate military action. Secondly and very importantly, he indicated that he understood some of the circumstances—particularly the instability in the middle east and surrounding countries—that aggravate these problems.
  In saying that, however, my right hon. Friend did not fall into a trap into which many do fall: that of saying that being able to explain the circumstances that aggravate the political or economic instability of regions such as this somehow excuses those who take or organise terrorist actions. There can be no excuse. There can be no excuse for individuals, groups or nation states. That is why it may well be appropriate and necessary to deal with some aspects of the Taliban regime.
  It is important to understand this. If we do not, we shall make another mistake that people make and assume that Arabs in particular—I have many Arab constituents—have not the free will and the ability to solve some of the problems in their own countries, and to know that those problems exist. They do know; and they resent the implication, often made with good intentions, that Saddam Hussein and others of his kind—including the Taliban—are there only because of what the west, or the United States, has done.
  Those people know that there is a democratic deficit in some of their countries. They know that there is a human rights deficit. They know that some of what the west has done aggravates those problems, and they know in particular that the double standards between Israel and Palestine cause a lot of discontent on the streets. I agree with them about that. But never—please—make the mistake of assuming that because somehow or other the west gets its actions wrong in such areas, that justifies the reaction of either terrorist groups or, indeed, the Saddam Husseins of this world. My Arab constituents resent that assumption. They believe—they know—who is responsible for the misery of the Afghan people and for that of the Iraqi people, and it is not the west.
  Thirdly, the Prime Minister spoke for me by doing something incredibly important: he put this destructive act in a context in which something optimistic could be built from it at the end of the day. We may well—I think we will—secure greater international agreement on how to deal with violence of one type or another, and that alone is important. We may—indeed, we must—put more emphasis on resolving the difficulties between Palestine and Israel. I agree with almost all that has been said about that so far, and about the all-important need to ensure that Israel recognises its responsibilities to move in that regard.
  Let no one dismiss the hope that the Prime Minister expressed last Tuesday for a better world; the only people who object to it are cynics and depressives. Of course it can be dismissed, as one or two rather right-wing journalists did when speaking to me on Tuesday night. They said, "You will never deliver it." Well, I would far rather enter this century—this millennium—with that expression of hope, and that agenda, than ever to return to the agendas of the past, when it was assumed that war could not be prevented, that it was not possible to go in for peacekeeping, and that it was not possible to deal with

  739
  the Rwandas and the Bosnias. We can. We did it in Bosnia, and, as the Prime Minister said, we should have done it in Rwanda.
  The real danger underlying so much of this—we are all aware of it, although we may not have expressed it in these words—is that of a clash between civilisations and religions if we mishandle it. Pakistan is crucial: it contains 143 million people, it has a nuclear weapon, and if it becomes unstable—it is already unstable, in fact, but if it becomes another Iraq or, indeed, Iran of the 1980s—we shall be in serious trouble. The handling of this is therefore very important, which is why it is right to keep emphasising the importance of Islam.
  By Islam I mean not just a religion—I speak as one who has very little time for any religion, as I am not religious—but a civilisation. I dearly hope that the BBC will show the programmes that it featured late at night before 11 September at an earlier time, because those programmes were exceptionally good. They told people about Islam and what it stood for. There are fundamentalists in all walks of life—in religion, and in politics. Fundamentalists and authoritarians are the danger, not any particular religious or political belief. I say that with some feeling.
  I want to emphasise something else. This is why I particularly wanted to speak in the debate. The Afghan taxi driver from my constituency who, when I checked the other day, was still lying in intensive care paralysed from the neck down, is there not just because of the bigotry and religious hatred that can boil around, but because of incredible ignorance. What sort of people did not put two and two together? Why did they not think, "Perhaps this guy is an Afghan refugee; if he is, he may have problems with the Taliban; therefore, he may be our friend rather than our enemy"? It is not just wicked; it is incredibly stupid.
  My last point has already been made by a couple of Members. There is a danger of people being anti-American. This country has good reason to draw some lessons from history. Let us look back at a few pages of history. It may surprise people to know that, 100 years ago almost to the day, The New York Times described Britain as a great power that was destined to rule the world. The French and the Germans said the same. We retreated into isolation; and only the Daily Mail could have produced, just a few years later, the headline "Fog in the Channel—Europe isolated".
  Great powers are destined to be both admired and resented. Great powers do get their interventions wrong, and they do harm as well as good; but it is important to keep the balance in our own minds too, because they do much good. Many people will say that, and in my constituency—which represents so many from around the world—they frequently do. We should listen to them, look back at our own history, and use it to learn lessons for today.
  2.8 pm
  Patsy Calton: I endorse what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), and will not go over the same ground.
  I was one of those who were in the American capital at the time of the attacks. I was a member of an all-party delegation, with colleagues, many of whom are here
  740
  today. We were evacuated very precipitately—not surprisingly, given the nature of the attacks and the fact that there was still a plane in the air at the time. It lives with all of us that we may well be here now because of the bravery of the passengers on the plane that came down in Pennsylvania.
  On the previous day, 10 September, we had engaged in a number of discussions with leading politicians and State Department officials. As friends and allies, we were nevertheless bringing to their attention our concerns about some areas of American foreign policy, specifically the aftermath of Kyoto, the Palestine-Israel conflict and national missile defence issues. The comments were striking and the Americans were more than prepared to listen. We were given a clear sign that the Bush Administration welcomed comment and criticism and that what we said would not be ignored. The events of the following day put much of that out of our minds. I pay my own tribute to the dignity and unity of the American people whom we saw, and to the bravery of the firemen and policemen who had to handle what happened.
  I agree entirely with the comments that have been made about the need for military action to be proportionate. It should be time limited and we should be looking for clear outcomes. Humanitarian aid should be part of the work that produces the outcomes that we are seeking.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife and my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal Democrats said that we should be involving the United Nations, and specifically Kofi Annan, in providing legitimacy for the action that we would have to take. In my reading of Colin Powell's biography, the lesson of Vietnam is that the public, in a protracted action, need to be convinced of the legitimacy of any action taken.
  I am more than happy to accept the word of the leader of my party, as no doubt other Members are prepared to accept the word of their leaders, but we must accept that the public will sometimes need a little more than the say-so of leading politicians. It is important to bring in someone who is seen to be neutral.
  I turn to the work that we need to do in our communities. In my constituency, the work of the chair of the Cheadle Muslim Association, Mr. Assad Zaman, has built bridges between the Muslim community and parts of that community and others. Some of the first messages of concern for my own safety came from the Muslim community in my constituency.
  We must voice the message that action or activity is not being taken against Muslims and Islam. We need to go further than that. We are leaders in our communities, and as such we should assist the integration of people from other cultures and other faiths. In particular, we need to respect one another's cultures and faiths; merely crying for integration is not sufficient.
  The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) talked about the force of law in terms of racist attacks and the need for it to be brought to bear. There is relevant legislation on the statute book already but too often, sadly, it is not being used when it should be. Legislation should be extended to deal with religious attacks to cover the Muslims in my constituency and elsewhere.
  Politicians should be careful about their language and so should the media. I was much taken with the comments of the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter),

  741
  who talked about the need for positive language when dealing with these issues. We need to be careful because it is not only what we say that matters. There is the potential for misunderstanding on the part of people with different cultures and faiths.
  The Muslim population in my constituency is concerned about the linkage of asylum seekers with race issues. They are concerned also about comments about a just war. Justice has specific meanings for people of the Muslim faith. Similarly, I hope that "crusade" has dropped out of the language.
  I was impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) in the debate on 14 September. It was a brave and compassionate speech that came at a time when perhaps we would have been talking only about retaliatory action. The hon. Gentleman made us stop and think. We all did well to do that in the circumstances.
  Good can come from the present situation in allowing and encouraging greater co-operation that involves different communities, different countries and different ethnic groups and faiths. They can be united in their determination to prevent terrorist attacks. We cannot continue to act as though we are different people throughout the world. Terrorism must not be allowed to work its way between us.
  2.16 pm
  Mike Gapes: It has just been reported on Ceefax that a Russian aircraft flying from Israel to Siberia has been destroyed by a terrorist bomb with the loss of 66 passengers and 10 crew. I refer to that to bring home to the House that it seems that some people—probably, I guess, those who perpetrated similar atrocities elsewhere recently—are already carrying out the further strand of their attacks.
  We must send our sympathy to the people of Israel, to the Russians and to India for terrorist actions that took place earlier this week. Further atrocities will clearly bring home to us the realities of the situation. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, we must prepare for further atrocities. I speak as a Co-operative Member. Three years ago, in August 1998, nearly 200 employees of the International Co-operative Alliance—they were mainly Kenyan citizens—were killed by Osama bin Laden in his attack on the American embassy in Nairobi. What sort of crime could development workers perpetrate to justify such an act? They were working to try to help co-operative development in Africa. Some of them were Muslims.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that there was no basis for the policy of bin Laden and his organisation. He argued that it had no objective. I must disagree. His objective, in his own words, is to destroy the Zionist crusader alliance and its international collaborators. That objective probably covers all or most of us in this place and many hundreds of millions of people throughout the world. In these circumstances we must recognise that this is a conflict that will continue for a long time and be prepared for the consequences.
  I am pleased that the Russians are involved in the coalition. I am pleased also that the Prime Minister is going to Russia today to cement the relationship.
  742
  However, we should praise also President Bush and the American Administration, and those words do not come easily to me. The attack in Kenya in 1998 led to an almost instant, punitive and controversial response by President Clinton against the alleged chemical plants in Sudan. We have not seen such a reaction from the current American Administration, and we should all welcome that. That shows a level of maturity and seriousness, which I hope will be continued in future.
  We must take action against bin Laden, his organisation and his allies. Those are not just the people whom he has directly under his control. There are sister terrorist organisations, some of them on the list that our Government published in the schedule to the Terrorism Act 2000—organisations directed against the Government of Egypt and other Arab Governments, not just against the Americans and the Israelis.
  We must recognise that in the conflict there will be voices, some of which we have heard in this country, saying, "Yes, but what about this?" or "Yes, but what about that?" My position is that there can be no excuse, no qualification and no justification—no what-aboutery—to justify the crimes on 11 September or the crimes carried out today.
  Sometimes people claim that there is a problem with the definition of terrorism, freedom fighters and resistance movements. We should examine the tactics pursued by an organisation to realise its aspirations and achieve its goal, however legitimate. The goal may be legitimate, but the tactics unacceptable. Mass murder, the killing of children, placing bombs in discotheques, blowing up aircraft and machine-gunning buses are not acceptable tactics in any struggle. We need to say that. That is why we are right to call for an end to all terrorism, as well as dealing with the wider issues and conflicts.
  Bin Laden is not carrying out terrorism because he was poor. Many of the idealistic young men recruited to his organisation, including a few misguided British people, had wealthy backgrounds and went to public schools. They did not join the organisation because they personally were oppressed. They adopted a particular ideological position and followed the logic to the terrible situation in which we find ourselves.
  We must be clear that even if we eradicated all the poverty in the middle east and even if the Palestinians had a state, it would not satisfy the aspirations of Osama bin Laden and what he stands for, because his agenda is wider than that. For those reasons, the House is right to unite behind the Government and the international coalition and to send out a forceful message that when action is taken to free the people of Afghanistan, to free the women of Afghanistan and to defeat international terrorism, we are all in it together.
  2.22 pm
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: I entirely agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) about what motives these terrorists have. I shall deal with that in a moment.
  There cannot be many constituencies that have not been affected in some way by the appallingly barbaric outrage. Relations of victims, the victims themselves or members of the armed forces who are currently in the middle east may live in those constituencies. In west Norfolk we have

  743
  the largest Tornado base in the country at RAF Marham. Many constituents of mine will be involved in the RAF in the weeks ahead, if military action is contemplated.
  I join many other hon. Members in congratulating the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary on their response and the work that they have done to react cautiously and build a wide coalition. Partly as a result of that approach, the recent United Nations resolution on terrorism was a positive move which will go a long way towards cutting off the funds of the various terrorist organisations.
  Turning now to extradition. I believe that our law is inadequate. Rightly or wrongly, Britain is seen as a safe haven for terrorism. We have been used as a communications centre for the al-Qaeda movement. At least 10 of the 19 hijackers passed through London. If we are serious about combating international terrorism, we must urgently examine our extradition laws. We have rightly demanded that the Taliban hand over bin Laden or face the consequences. We have often complained when the United States has failed to extradite swiftly suspected IRA terrorists to this country.
  The case of Lotfi Raissi brings the matter into sharp focus. He is the 27-year-old Algerian pilot who helped a number of the hijackers to train as pilots. He is wanted in the USA in connection with the outrage. I welcome the fact that FBI agents have been to interview him, but unless our law is changed and an amendment is made to the European convention on human rights, particularly article 3, which is now incorporated into our own law, the extradition process may go on for two to three years. That is simply not good enough.
  MI5 should not have to lobby for the reform of the convention. I despaired the other day when I read of the remarks of Lord Chief Justice Woolf. In normal times, yes, basic freedoms should take second place to the fight against terrorism, but we are not living in normal times, as various other cases show, such as the case of Adel Bary and Ibrahim Eidarous, who were both arrested in London in connection with the 1999 US embassy bombings. They face extradition to the US.
  Extradition proceedings against Khalid al Fawwaz, a well-known fund-raiser for al-Qaeda, have been going on for two and a half years and have cost well over half a million pounds. He is on benefit in this country, and there is no prospect of that extradition being brought to a swift conclusion. Finally, there is the case of Sheikh Omar Abu Omar, a close ally of bin Laden. He has been sentenced in absentia in the Jordanian courts. He is living in the United Kingdom on benefit and is fighting extradition.
  I do not believe that it is beyond the best legal brains in this country to devise a new framework for extradition that protects many of those who face extradition, but which can deal specifically with known and suspected terrorists—
  Mr. Galloway: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bellingham: I will not, as I do not have much time left. I am sorry about that.
  Mr. Galloway: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for live cases which are before the British courts to be referred to in the way that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) is
  744
  referring to them—declaring people guilty whose cases are still being considered by the British judicial system? Is not the hon. Gentleman making a terrifically irresponsible speech?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Certainly, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) is correct to say that details of cases currently under jurisdiction should not be referred to. I personally did not hear the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) say that the person to whom he was referring was guilty.
  Mr. Bellingham: No, Madam Deputy Speaker, I did not in any way suggest that the people whom I mentioned were guilty. I referred to the system. Everything that I said is on the wider public record. It has been in the newspapers, on the radio and elsewhere in the media.
  The European convention on human rights will have to be amended and new primary legislation will be required in this country. The attack against terrorism that will take place throughout the western world must also involve the IRA and the other terrorist organisations operating in Northern Ireland. When President George W. Bush speaks of cutting off the finances of terrorist organisations and introducing legislation to that effect in Congress, I hope that he will bear in mind Noraid, the fund-raising arm of the IRA, which has been raising large sums of money in America.
  We must consider the background to the appalling atrocities. We must examine the mindset that drives the self-sacrifice terrorists to the deeds that they committed. One of the most striking aspects of the attacks, as the hon. Member for Ilford, South pointed out, is that we are not speaking about people brought up in the slums of Cairo or Tripoli. We are speaking about people who had a university education, were highly intelligent and had much to look forward to in their lives. What drove them to commit those atrocities? They have a mindset that is completely alien to our culture and way of life.
  I feel strongly that until we deal with the two issues in the middle east that are creating festering sores in which this type of terrorism breeds, we will not solve the problem. I am referring to the Palestinian question. Without going into great detail, I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) said. Until we sort out the Palestinian problem and the Palestinians have their own sovereign state this problem will not go away. That may not be the policy of my party, but it is my firm view.
  I also strongly believe that until we deal with the plight of the Iraqi people such a breeding ground in that country will continue to fester. Iraqis of my generation—those in their 30s and 40s—are very pro-British. They always have been—we have many friends in Iraq. The new generation, however, feels unbelievably bitter about the sanctions, which have not had one iota of effect on Saddam Hussein. After the war we all believed that the Sunni and Shia Muslims and the Kurds would unite to overthrow Saddam Hussein, but that was wishful thinking.
  Until we tackle the plight of the Iraqi people—look at what is going on in that country and deal with the anger and hatred that is building up—and the Palestinian question, we will not solve the problem of international terrorism.
  2.31 pm
  Hugh Bayley: I will not be present for the reply to the debate as I have been asked to go to Paris this afternoon to represent my party at a meeting of the Socialist International.
  The Government and the Prime Minister in particular have responded well domestically and on the international stage to the crisis. We have a clear duty to protect our citizens from atrocities. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) pointed out that the risks are very real and continuing.
  I have read the evidence that the Prime Minister placed in the Library this morning and I believe that military action is a necessary part of our response to make it less likely, or impossible, for further atrocities such as those committed on 11 September to take place.
  I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister say this morning that he believes that the humanitarian coalition is as vital as military action. The humanitarian crisis faced even before the events of 11 September by the people of Afghanistan was very real. After 23 years of war, seven years of Taliban misrule and three years of drought, food production in the country last year was half the normal production—in some parts of the country it was only one tenth of the normal level. Twenty five per cent. of children born in Afghanistan die before the age of five.
  The problems faced by women are particularly acute. I have no idea what it costs to buy a place on a truck going from Kabul to the border, but it will be out of the price range of any of the 700,000 war widows in Afghanistan, who are not allowed by the Taliban to work and have to survive as best they can on the help of friends or family or by begging on the streets. They and their children will be major casualties.
  The United Nations published a report headed "The Deepening Crisis" a week before the World Trade Centre attack, which talks about 5 million Afghans being displaced within Afghanistan or as refugees to neighbouring countries. Last Friday, the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs in its "Donor Alert" report estimated that a further 2.5 million Afghans are likely to flee their homes from fear of conflict or conflict itself. Some will move within the country, about a million are expected to cross the border to Pakistan, 400,000 to go to Iran and 100,000 to central Asia.
  The United Kingdom has well-established aid programmes in Afghanistan and elsewhere to assist Afghan refugees. The Department for International Development has responded quickly and positively to the crisis with the allocation of a further £25 million on top of the £35 million in aid that it sent to Afghanistan last year, as well as another £11 million of aid to Pakistan, in particular for the poorer areas that are likely to receive refugees. About £15 million of that UK aid has already been disbursed. Speed is essential. Food supplies need to get through before the winter sets in as communications will be frustrated by the winter weather as well as by a breakdown of law and order which may follow military action.
  Is £36 million enough? No. In its report on Friday, the United Nations called for an international fund of $584 million—just under $200 million for food aid over the next six months and about $270 million to help refugees.
  It is instructive to consider what happened in Kosovo. Fewer than a million Kosovan Albanian refugees fled south to Macedonia or Albania. Although that is still a
  746
  huge number, it is about a third of the number that the UN estimates will flee Afghanistan. The logistics were easier in the former Yugoslavia than they are in and around Afghanistan and the donor community pledged $2.6 billion for Kosovo in 1999. The United Kingdom has provided more than £100 million in bilateral aid to Kosovo since July 1999.
  At present the UK's contributions come from the Department's contingency reserves, which is the right place for them to come from. However, will the Secretary of State for Defence say in his reply whether, if additional resources are required—I accept that we will not know that until we know the number of refugees—the Treasury will make them available to ensure that the Department for International Development does not have to cut necessary aid programmes in other parts of the world?
  Furthermore, in addition to planning military action to constrain and defeat the terrorists, will the Secretary of State's Department plan for the armed forces to carry out humanitarian tasks? Our armed forces played a magnificent and important humanitarian role in the former Yugoslavia. Given the size of the humanitarian task, I am certain that we will need support from the military to provide security, so that aid can get through to the people for whom it is intended and is not looted or captured by bandits, and possibly to help build refugee camps or provide wider logistical support to aid operations. Is that planning taking place and, most importantly, is it taking place in consultation with the Department for International Development?
  Obviously, meticulous military planning is taking place with regard to action against terrorism. It must be meticulous because it is a matter of life and death for those involved, including a number of my constituents as my constituency is a garrison town, and our armed forces will be at risk because of the military action that we are taking. Will the planning be as meticulous for the humanitarian role that they may also be called upon to perform, which will also be a matter of life and death for Afghans?
  2.39 pm
  Mr. Gregory Barker: I add my voice to the chorus of approval from the House in praising the considered, purposeful and resolute leadership of President George W. Bush. He has been severely tested in the most tragic and appalling of circumstances and within months of taking office. He has been tested, but he has not been found wanting. We are, indeed, very fortunate to have such a man in the White House. I also praise the achievements of the Prime Minister in forging such a close and effective working relationship with the President.
  The Conservative party, perhaps more than any, has always known the value of the special relationship, but the Prime Minister has demonstrated that the bonds that bind our two nations are not the property of any one party but the prerogative of all. I am sorry, therefore, that the leader of the Liberal Democrats found it necessary to sound off at his party conference when he warned about writing blank cheques to America.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that Senator Biden, Senator Strom Thurmond or any legislator in the United States would be as

  747
  concerned to ensure the safety of British forces and British interests as any Member of the House of Commons?
  Mr. Barker: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right, but the only thing that has been hasty and ill considered has been not the actions of the President of the United States but the rhetoric of the leader of the Liberal Democrats at their conference. His remarks were hasty and ill judged.
  The President did us all a signal honour when he acknowledged in Congress that America has no truer friend than Great Britain. However, I am particularly glad that the Prime Minister is reaching out not just to our oldest allies but to new-found friends such as Russia. I wish the Prime Minister godspeed in his journey today. Russia has more motivation than most to join us in the war against terror.
  I lived and worked in Moscow two years ago when the city was convulsed by the terrorist bombing of residential apartment blocks. Hundreds of innocent civilians were slaughtered, literally in their beds. The fear in the city that ensued was almost tangible as people went home at night not knowing whether they would wake up the next morning. In recent years, similar atrocities have been perpetrated right across the Commonwealth of Independent States, and I believe that President Putin has the makings of a staunch ally in the new global war against terror.
  Although our national security must never be compromised, I would like greater emphasis to be placed on the effective sharing of intelligence when it is safe to do so. We have an unparalleled history of successful intelligence sharing with the United States, and now on matters of terrorism we can and must be more proactive with others. There is still plenty of scope for better collaboration with our European partners, particularly those within the Schengen bloc, and with other nations such as Russia that stand ready to march with us against this new threat.
  The Prime Minister has helped to stitch together a remarkable coalition, and of course any ensuing military action will be bound to impose a strain on so broad an alliance. However, the Government must make sure that this new spirit of international co-operation is converted into solid, tangible and practical benefits as quickly as possible. Better and more effective cross-border intelligence is such a benefit and it will be a key pillar of any counter-terrorist strategy that is to prove successful.
  In this new and complex war against terror, our salvation will be in the detail. The Prime Minister has set the right course. It will now fall to him and to all his governmental colleagues to deliver. We hope and pray that they can.
  2.44 pm
  Mr. Ernie Ross: The events of 11 September arguably represent the most significant defining moment since the fall of the Berlin wall. It is not that international terrorism is new, but the scale and the audacity of the event that took place in New York and the unprecedented way in which the terrorists had the capacity to inflict war on nation states changes for ever our approach to dealing with terrorism itself. Terrorism is
  748
  not a battle between conventional military forces; it involves ordinary people and the values and principles with which they run their lives.
  There is no doubt that bad and undemocratic government creates the conditions in which terrorism can take hold. If the fall of the Berlin wall brought freedom, it also raised expectations. In many parts of the world, open access to television and to a view of the world that had been long denied to the people behind the structure of the Soviet Union meant that they wanted and expected to receive the benefits that they had seen. Of course they did not receive those benefits and, because in many countries they could not express their anger and opposition, some people became prone to listening to the voices of extremism. They perhaps believed that those voices represented the way forward.
  Anger caused by domestic problems is to an extent fuelled by the way we conduct international relations. There are examples that show how members of the Muslim world might fall into the trap set by Osama bin Laden and others. In the Gulf war, American troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia where two of the most holy Muslim sites are situated; we continue to police the exclusion zones in Iraq; and the United States has uncritical support for Israel's actions in the middle east. Rightly or wrongly, many people in the Muslim world see all that as an affront and as proof of western disregard for Muslim societies and their rights, values and opinions. Such dissent can breed terrorism, because in many of those countries there are few ways for anger to be expressed through legitimate channels. Some Governments are happy to see the popular discontent in their own country directed outside the country rather than at themselves.
  Terrorism is a symptom of the absence of democratic government, where people feel marginalised and impotent. The converse is also true. Strong democracies are a counter to terrorism, and as a part of our response to the atrocities in New York and Washington we need to review and reinvigorate our involvement in supporting democracy and the rule of law in the belt of countries that stretches from Morocco to Pakistan.
  I have learned today that the Pakistan Government have seen the evidence linking Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda to the recent terrorist acts. They consider that the evidence is strong enough to stand up in a court of law, and it is useful to know that in this debate.
  If we are to respond to terrorism, we must ensure that other countries have the democracy and accountability within their own culture that we have here. Parliaments in such countries must be made to work and must be filled with people who truly represent the interests of their communities. Political parties must seek out a constituency and offer a real channel for communicating public discontent and for translating it into change. Local communities should be helped to make local government work for them, and people should start to have confidence that their Government are there to serve them and that they can seek legal redress through the courts.
  It is vital that the United Kingdom plays its part to promote the development of inclusive and pluralist democracies throughout the world. I chair the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and the organisation has the necessary expertise and experience to take a lead in this important task. We do that in conjunction with partner organisations in Europe and the USA.

  749
  The organisation works directly with local partners to develop culturally appropriate democratic structures. It works with national and local government, with civil society and with other international partners. Its work in Africa, central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union has demonstrated that it has the necessary flexibility, sensitivity and robustness to tackle the difficult task of developing democracy in a wide range of cultures. We are uniquely placed in having that organisation to help us.
  At our conference, the Prime Minister declared his unswerving support for justice and prosperity for the poor and dispossessed in all parts of the world, particularly where the international community has failed to take adequate action to ensure that justice and international law are applied. The middle east is just one such place. The Prime Minister clearly does not divorce the future security of the state of Israel from the issues of justice for the Palestinians. As he said, they should have a
  "chance to prosper and in their own land, as equal partners with Israel in that future."
  The two are inextricably linked.
  The current situation is a far cry from justice. The slums of Gaza, to which the Prime Minister referred, hit the news again yesterday morning with the heavy Israeli military reprisals after the shooting dead of two Jewish settlers by Hamas gunmen. Such killings are reprehensible, but as well as condemning the killings we must address the sense of injustice that is rife within the Gaza strip, where appalling squalor and the deprivation of basic human civil liberties create a breeding ground for frustration. In Beach Camp, more than 70,000 Palestinian refugees live in three quarters of a square kilometre without proper drainage or clean water. Quite literally in the midst of the deprivation, Israel provocatively chooses to allow the existence of settlements, where Jewish citizens enjoy prosperity and the protection of an inflated Israeli military presence, which is denied to the refugees.
  The greatest and most overlooked factor in the repeated failures to bring about a just and lasting peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians has been the failure to address the issue of Palestinian refugees. During the Camp David talks there was no acknowledgement from Israel of any legal, historic or moral responsibility for the refugee phenomenon. Behind the scenes, only minimal and tentative offers to accept the return of a token number of refugees were being made. The refugee problem is huge, and it is central to any viable peace process. Palestinians comprise the largest and one of the oldest groups of refugees in the world. As well as the refugees in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, two thirds of the Palestinian population in Gaza and one third of the population on the west bank are refugees.
  The joint parliamentary middle east councils in this building produced a report asking the Palestinian refugees to say in their own words how they envisaged living in peace side by side with their Israeli colleagues. That report is full of hope and I recommend it—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.
  2.53 pm
  Mr. Paul Keetch: I extend my thanks to the Secretary of State for Defence and his officials for the way they have kept me and the shadow defence team informed of events over the past few weeks. It has been most welcome.
  On 11 September, we witnessed a ghastly symptom of the old disease of terrorism. Seven thousand people are dead with no warning, no demands and no mercy. For me and I am sure for many other hon. Members, the sight of jets flying low over London to Heathrow will be a permanent reminder of the people who died in those tragic events. Nothing can justify such a savage attack on freedom and such a disgusting assault on innocent lives. It was outside the bounds of international law and showed no regard for human rights. Our response should remain always within international law. We must respect the human rights that the terrorists seek to destroy.
  It is probable that in the next few days or weeks, British troops will be involved in military action. Hon. Members must always remember that the members of the armed forces and their families are our constituents and our friends. I and many of my Liberal Democrat colleagues have members of the armed forces based in our constituencies. At such a time it is right to praise the professionalism of the people who may go to war. I know that there are individuals from my constituency who are already out there. If they are deployed, we will pray for their safe return home.
  I support proportionate military action against terrorism, but I understand that military force is a tool, not a policy. The aim of any action must be clearly stated and the scale of operations must be directed towards achieving that aim. In short, such action must be targeted, based on sound intelligence and fall within the boundaries of international law. I am confident that that will be the case in this instance.
  I join other hon. Members in praising President Bush for the measured way in which he has responded to the crisis. He is a credit to his nation. He understands that any disproportionate action would achieve nothing, except to create anger and discontent, split the coalition and make those bent on committing acts of terror all the more aggressive and desperate. We should never respond to tenor with terror; we should respond with justice and humanity.
  There have been those who have criticised my party's position and say that we should have offered unequivocal support. Indeed, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) did so a few moments ago. It is sad that in a debate where members of all political parties have tried to speak for Britain, at least one Back-Bench Opposition Member criticised another party. I should tell that hon. Gentleman that, together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) and others, I met the United States ambassador when he came to our party conference two weeks ago. We explained our position to him and he said that he supported and understood it.
  If one says "We support everything that you do", there can be no debate, no questioning and no scrutiny. Throughout the extraordinary and strong relationship that has existed between the United Kingdom and the United States since the second world war, there has never been a blank cheque between Britain and America. During the

  751
  war in Vietnam, the Americans pleaded with us to send troops but we, quite rightly, said no. During the Falklands campaign, the Americans supplied us with important intelligence, but they never deployed troops. During the Suez crisis, they rightly said no to our requests.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: In that case, can the hon. Gentleman explain why so much fuss was made about a blank cheque when nobody was ever suggesting such a thing?
  Mr. Keetch: I am sorry, but just such a suggestion was clearly made by Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen. They said that they would support any action. One does not start a military campaign by saying to a close ally—however close that ally may be—that one will do whatever it wants. I am not suggesting that the Government are adopting that course. We have never given such a blank cheque to America, and America has never given such a blank cheque to us.
  Mr. Barker: The hon. Gentleman is right—there have been no blank cheques. Perhaps he will explain why the leader of the Liberal Democrats was addressing remarks to the Conservative party, when everybody else thought that he should be addressing his remarks to the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Keetch: The point of my right hon. Friend's comments, which I support and which have widespread support across the country, was to ensure that any action should be within international law as well as being appropriate and responsible. Nothing that we have said has suggested anything else. I was saddened that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle chose to raise this issue during this well-natured debate.
  Several hon. Members have said that our military campaign should be based on sound intelligence, and that is right. We should remember that a bomb is only as smart as the intelligence that targets it—we all remember the events surrounding the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. We possess some of the finest intelligence services in the world. We must develop our intelligence to try to track down the perpetrators of the events in New York and Washington and to ensure that such events never happen again. To that end, I must add my voice to the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) who in the past has raised concerns about the cuts at GCHQ. Surely, sound intelligence must be the basis on which we fight this conflict.
  At the Labour party conference, the Secretary of State for Defence announced a review of our forces. No doubt we will see more details of that in due course. I hope that this new chapter of the strategic defence review will not be used as an excuse to merge and scrap regiments, as has been rumoured since the beginning of this year. We must recognise that any review of our armed forces without looking at finances would be a wasted opportunity. We must address the imbalance between commitments, capability and resources if we are to stop the inordinate strain on our armed forces. If we do not, before long we will be driven once more into a wholesale, strategic defence review.
  We in this House should not think that we are so important that every sentence we utter is listened to in the United States. On Monday this week I had the privilege
  752
  of meeting Bob McNamara who served with distinction as the Secretary of Defence under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. He was Secretary of Defence during the Cuban missile crisis. It was his view that we should never underestimate the power that allies could have in US politics and that Britain, as America's closest ally, could have a vital role in shaping US policy. That is why our words do matter. We must make the right noises and talk of justice, not revenge.
  The Prime Minister's speech in Brighton earlier this week has been described by many as Gladstonian, so I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to remember the words of William Gladstone, when he talked about the life of a person in Afghanistan and about justice, not revenge. He said:
  "Remember that the happiness of his humble home, remember that the sanctity of life in the hill villages of Afghanistan, among the winter snows, is as inviolable in the eye of Almighty God as can be your own."
  We should remember that when we go into action because those words, spoken in 1879, are as true today as they were then.
  3 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Staying on the reference of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) to winter snows, may I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), a very direct question? What assessment has been made of the consequences both for humanitarian aid and for military action of the indubitable fact that, within seven or eight weeks from now at the latest, the passes of Afghanistan will become impassable? That is my first question.
  In a carefully considered comment, the Leader of the Opposition asked about action against Iraq and, bluntly, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's response was somewhat ambiguous. Unpalatable though it may be and although some hon. Members may think that I am away with the fairies, I shall ask this question: is this not an opportunity at least to start talking to the Government of Iraq? The fact is that anyone who knows anything about the Baath party knows that it is highly secular and that the Iraqi Government loathe the Taliban. That is the fact of the matter. The Iraqi Government have no time for what the Taliban represent. Might not this be the opportunity at least to start a dialogue and to find out what Baghdad has to say?
  Bluntly, it is my opinion that the Government of Iraq had nothing to do with this. That may be right or it may be wrong, but it is my opinion, for what it is worth. It is also true that anyone—Saudis, Yemenis or Iraqis—may well have been recruited to the evil organisation of bin Laden because the bombing and sanctions have gone on for 10 years. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) made an interesting speech and asked similar questions from the other side of the House. I hope that that issue will be addressed in the wind-up speech.
  3.2 pm
  Mr. John Baron: First, I join other hon. Members in congratulating the United States on the restraint that it has shown in the face of the terrorist attack. My thoughts and prayers—indeed, those of the

  753
  House generally—are with the American people at this time and, indeed, with all those who have suffered loss, not least those in my constituency.
  Tensions are running high in the middle east at the moment, and it is essential that any action—and action there will be—must be focused, thought through and considered. In bringing bin Laden and his terrorist accomplices to justice, a primary aim must also be to minimise the loss of innocent life, for we all know that two wrongs do not make a right.
  I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Government on the handling of this affair so far, and especially the part that they have played in forging an international alliance against terrorism. We all agree with the Prime Minister's and the Foreign Secretary's confirmation today that we will fight all forms of terrorism anywhere in the world. However, I have one concern—does the Government agree that if the new globally co-ordinated fight against terrorism is to have legitimacy and credibility, there must be consistency of approach in its application? Yet the fact remains that, despite bending over backwards to appease terrorists in Northern Ireland, we have not managed to ensure any decommissioning of weapons, and I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and others who have made that point. That is clearly wrong. We send troops to Macedonia to decommission warring factions there, but we cannot disarm terrorists in our own backyard. That contradiction in our approach will not help us in the eyes of the international community when it comes to fighting terrorism.
  Lembit Öpik: Although the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is more than a little confusion and frustration about such matters, especially on the Unionist side, does he also accept that the other lesson for us from Northern Ireland is that it is necessary to enter into a dialogue to address the motives that drive terrorism? Indeed, a former Conservative Prime Minister was instrumental in creating that dialogue.
  Mr. Baron: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. Dialogue is terribly important, but in Northern Ireland we have a democratic process by which people can engage in dialogue through the ballot box. There are parties, politics and everyone has a vote. There is no excuse whatever for taking up arms in Northern Ireland—or, indeed, in the whole island of Ireland.
  I want briefly to raise two other related issues, the first of which relates to defence spending. I am concerned that defence spending now represents about 2.5 per cent. of gross domestic product—the lowest level in real terms probably since the Napoleonic wars. This year's allocation represents yet another cut in real terms. My concern is that that approach not only puts our own security at risk, but adds to the risks to our own troops on the ground. We all know that our troops in Kosovo, for example, did not have enough boots and that their radios were not up to sufficient standard so mobile phones had to be used. We know that the SAS has yet to receive its new Chinook helicopter. I ask the Government to realise that they cannot penny-pinch when it comes to the cost of defending the realm.
  Finally, I want to raise the broader issue of police numbers, which is related to terrorism. There is increasing evidence, particularly in my constituency, that police
  754
  resources are being stretched too far. That is not the local police force's fault. The police do not have sufficient numbers to police the local community as they would wish. Will the Government now realise that, in addition to a much tougher approach towards terrorism, we owe it to the vast majority of law-abiding citizens to get much tougher with criminals in general? Part of the fight against crime must include many more police on the streets—as many as 25,000 to 30,000 more. That is the sort of step change required. I ask the Government to consider such an approach, for, if nothing else, the events of 11 September have shown that we must do all we can to protect the law-abiding majority, whether from criminals or terrorists.
  3.8 pm
  Richard Burden: Not only were the events of 11 September appalling and devastating, but in the days and weeks that have followed all of us, whether or not we are politicians, have had to question many things as we try to come to terms with the way in which the world needs to respond. In the military sphere, there is now talk about having to come to terms with asymmetrical warfare. In many ways, we will have to come to terms with issues involving asymmetrical politics as well, as we face often contradictory pressures, all of which will have to inform our actions in the days, weeks and months ahead.
  As we rightly commit ourselves to stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of the USA, we know that the events in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington were attacks not only on the USA, but in a very real sense on us all. For that reason, the response must be international. The Government have contributed a great deal to the emerging coalition, but there are still real issues to address about how the coalition functions and its relationship to institutions such as the United Nations. I certainly welcome the Foreign Secretary's comments today on that matter. I emphasise to my right hon. Friend that if international confidence in the coalition is to be maintained over months, not just weeks, a real sense of international ownership must be brought to bear as well. Given the changed situation, in the coming months I look forward to greater emphasis being placed on the demand that we have supported in the House for the International Criminal Court. Perhaps we will now have some allies among those who so far have resisted that.
  The contradictory pressures are nowhere more evident than in Afghanistan, where we are considering the likelihood of military action while simultaneously trying to address a humanitarian disaster of mammoth proportions. I am not opposed to a military response, and if we expect our military forces to operate in Afghanistan they have to have the means to do so. However, the targeting of any such action is vital to minimise civilian casualties. A successful humanitarian effort will not only save lives, but will be as important as military action in isolating support for the Taliban in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
  In the brief time that I have available, I want to raise two issues. The first is on the meaning of terrorism and the second relates to the situation in the middle east, our response to which will have huge significance for the prospects of building the different world to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister rightly referred in his speech to the Labour party conference this week.

  755
  I very much agreed with my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) when he said that there was a danger of talking about terrorism as having one definition or about terrorists as an undifferentiated group. For the families and friends of innocent victims of terrorist acts, it makes no difference who or what the terrorist is and whether their loved one has been killed in a hijack, by a bomb or by a bullet. That is why, for my constituents and others in Birmingham, the twin towers outrage brought back many memories of the pub bombings of the 1970s. The circumstances and the scale are very different, but the pain and loss felt by loved ones is the same.
  Determining the response of the international community to terrorism is more complex, however. No single response is appropriate in all situations. In truth, there never has been an international consensus on what should be defined as terrorism. At one of the spectrum is al-Qaeda, which has global objectives and a strategy of hate in which means and ends are intertwined in a cycle of violence. It is a fanaticism that has grotesquely distorted Islam and has rightly been condemned by Muslims world wide. In the light of recent events it is not clear whether any level of violence would be regarded as unacceptable by groups such as that. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary observed recently, there really is no diplomatic alternative to confronting such groups.
  We also know that innocent civilians have died in attacks born not out of a distorted global strategy, but out of despair, poverty and oppression, which all too often we in the west have allowed to continue for decades. We should not underestimate the anger that such apparent double standards has engendered in many parts of the world. While it is right for the international community to say that the deliberate targeting of civilians or the use of terror for political ends is wrong whatever the cause, the fact remains that ultimately it will not be the suppression of such acts that defeats them, but solving the injustices that causes them.
  That is why finding a solution to the situation in the middle east has moved centre stage and Britain's contribution is vital. It is important to state and restate that Israel has a right to security and Israelis have a right to live in peace. Internationally, we can help to safeguard those rights. I was pleased when on Tuesday and again today my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister emphasised that the rights of Palestinians must also be recognised as, to use his words, "equal partners with Israel" in shaping their common future. We need to understand what equality means in that part of the world.
  I have had an interest in the middle east for many years, but it was only when I saw for myself the squalor of Gaza that I was able to comprehend the scale of inequality that has been tolerated for more than half a century. I began to appreciate a bit more how daily inequality felt when I was in a car that was stopped at a checkpoint between Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Apparently, we were stopped and turned back for no other reason than the fact that the driver was Palestinian. Even though things are much worse now, at the height of the peace process I began to understand how ordinary Palestinians felt when the world was applauding the progress being made while their homes were being expropriated, apparently without a murmur of international opposition.
  756
  In that part of the world violence and terror has been used on both sides, and it needs to be condemned on both sides. Bin Laden has little interest in the Palestinian question. Indeed, the continuation of that tragedy suits him down to the ground. However, if we are to defeat Bin Laden and his ilk we need to address it. Given our relationship with the middle east, we are in a unique position to take initiatives there. Now, in this new situation, the United States has a great deal of power to do something and Europe has a significant role to play. Ensuring that Israel has the security that its people deserve and need and that Palestinian rights are no less precious and the Palestinians have their own state will not only make the world a safer place, but I hope that Israel and Israelis will also understand that it will contribute perhaps more than anything else to something that they crave—peace and security in their own land.
  Many people have asked whether some good can come out of the tragedy of 11 September and in some ways it is difficult to see how it can, but if we are resolute in our determination to outlaw terrorism and bring the likes of bin Laden to justice, and if we can begin to tackle the causes of despair, oppression and poverty that have been clearly revealed in the middle east, just maybe some good will come out of it and those 7,000 people will not have died entirely in vain.
  3.16 pm
  Patrick Mercer: We heard some prophetic words from the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) when he referred to Osama bin Laden being allowed to stew for a while. I suggest that is precisely what we should not let him do.
  We have just seen on Teletext that a few hours ago another aircraft has been destroyed by an act of terrorism, this time over the Black sea, with upwards of 70 deaths. There is no doubt that terrorists see this as a long-term affair, not a short-term one. There have been terrorist operations in Srinigar and the Islamist movement in Uzbekistan is now threatening the bases that the American forces hope to use north of Afghanistan. The terrorists are in for a long-term operation. American forces have already been warned off—not just for this operation but to replace units in theatre in six months' time, so units from the 10th mountain division already have the warning for the next unit to take over from them in six months.
  What about ourselves? We are promised a review of our strategic defence review, but what capacity do we really have to defend the nation? I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) about police numbers. In my constituency, Newark and Retford are also horribly short of policemen, who provide us with security at its most basic level.
  In military terms, what interceptor aircraft are available to protect Heathrow? On 11 September the order was given to get aircraft in the air, yet there was none available. What nuclear, biological and chemical warfare defence do we have? The old civil defence system is long disbanded. The Army has one nuclear, biological and chemical warfare regiment at its disposal and that is currently deployed. The Territorial Army has trained troops but no equipment to defend us. Currently, the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre and the Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre are desperately short of manpower. There are photographic interpreters, Arabic speakers, intelligence

  757
  officers, interpreters and interrogators, all of whom are reservists or territorials. The regular units need them now, yet they have not been called. These people cannot reasonably be asked simply to volunteer to leave their employment to assist; they must be told officially to do so.
  In the 1970s and 1980s a battalion was regularly deployed at Heathrow airport to exercise for just this sort of emergency. It has long gone; no such battalion exists any more at Windsor. What about our defence medical services? There are 14 field ambulance units on war establishment but we can field only three. In the past, the Territorial Army had home defence battalions, as did the Regular Army. Now, the TA has all but gone.
  Mr. John Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House who decimated the British forces medical support services?
  Patrick Mercer: I do not seek to attribute blame. I merely say that something needs to be done, because we do not have the people we need to do the job now.
  What about aggressive operations as opposed to those that are purely defensive? We are desperately short of pilots to man the few aircraft that we have. I have already mentioned the TA, our regular forces are overstretched, and I am told that there is no plan to replace any of the regular units that are currently in theatre on Exercise Saif Sareea. Last but not least, what is being done to take advantage of the current atmosphere to recruit the 8,000 soldiers, not to mention the seamen and airmen, of whom our regular forces are short? What is being done to seize the initiative—to go out and recruit while the climate is right and people want to serve their nation? The answer is not very much, if anything.
  Our armed forces are in a parlous state. We have heard how our defence spending has been cut during the past 15 years. I suggest that we are not ready for sustained operations. While we have tiny numbers of special forces who can be—indeed, probably have been—deployed, the operation in which we are engaged might not be short term, and we are likely to need troops, weapons and equipment. In the 1930s, far-sighted politicians took unpalatable decisions and prepared us for a war that some regarded as inevitable; the result was victories such as the Battle of Britain following hard on defeats such as Dunkirk. I suggest to the House that we need to remedy the current situation, and remedy it soon.
  3.22 pm
  Tony Worthington: Like many others, I rise to express my full support for the Government's actions. I especially welcome the evidence that the humanitarian contribution is moving up the scale of priorities. That issue is of great importance, and I am sure that the Select Committee on International Development and others will want to become more involved than they have been thus far in terms of consultation and so on.
  In the time available to me, I shall focus on an issue related to the Government response to which no one else has referred: money laundering. Over the past few weeks, it has become commonplace to say that we must cut off the terrorists' supply of money and that the Government
  758
  must respond better to the problem of money laundering. I fully support that view, but I do not want us to rush into a knee-jerk response that allows us to kid ourselves that we have done something about the problem when we have not.
  It was pleasing to hear the Government's announcement this week that they had seized £59 million of Taliban money. It is good to see that the European Union is struggling to issue a directive on money laundering, and that the Queen's Speech contained a commitment in respect of money laundering. However, such things have been said before, so I remain unconvinced that much will actually happen.
  Earlier this week, there was a puzzling announcement that we are now to regulate bureaux de change—apparently, the United Kingdom is the only country in Europe that does not already regulate such bodies. The Government say that each year £3 billion to £4 billion, 65 per cent. of which is estimated to be illegal, goes out of the country through those organisations; but I wonder how long the Government have known that and why we are attending to it only now. The Prime Minister has rightly pointed out that 90 per cent. of the heroin on sale in Britain comes from Afghanistan, to a street value of £2 billion to £3 billion; but how many prosecutions have there been in that respect?
  Earlier this year, the International Development Committee examined corruption and, in that context, money laundering. We found a sorry scene indeed, the most notorious aspect of which is the Abacha case. The Nigerian Government asked us to help in tracking down £4 billion that had been taken out of Nigeria by Abacha, and to freeze Abacha's assets. Two years later, we have not done it, even though Governments such as Switzerland's—hardly famous for transparent accountancy—have done it, as has Liechtenstein. However, the papers this week reveal that we are still going through the process of judicial review and that nothing has happened.
  Our structures are a mess, and I am not the only one who says so—every independent observer says the same. The head of the United Nations Development Programme, Mark Malloch Brown, told the Select Committee:
  "I think different countries have different Achilles heels on corruption. The United Kingdom has … this banking issue"
  as its Achilles heel. London is a major financial centre and is therefore attractive to money launderers, but the current UK response to money laundering is piecemeal and unco-ordinated. Our approach fails to acknowledge the importance of money laundering to the worldwide problem of corruption.
  The Select Committee was deeply concerned about the role of one of this country's most valuable financial assets: the City of London itself. A recent book on the subject states:
  "Because of its key strategic position as a global financial centre the United Kingdom is a major laundering centre."
  I shall be pleased if we now take money laundering seriously, but let us not indulge in a knee-jerk response. I have a proposal to make to the House, because I think that the House should be involved. We should not merely accept the piece of legislation that the Home Secretary produces; estimable though it may be in itself, it cannot possibly be adequate to the task. As a consequence of the Scott inquiry into the control of arms exports, the House set up the Quadripartite Committee, comprising four

  759
  Select Committees—on Trade and Industry, on Employment, on International Development and on Foreign Affairs. Under the chairmanship of Ted Rowlands, the Committee produced a powerful piece of work that, through a consensual process in the House, resulted in the Bill on arms control that is currently going through Parliament.
  I propose that we consider establishing a Quadripartite Committee on money laundering, so that we cannot kid ourselves that we have tackled money laundering, which is a huge industry, when we have not done so. We should ask members of the Select Committees on International Development, on the Treasury, on Foreign Affairs and on Trade and Industry to examine the issue of money laundering and do a thorough job. If, over the next six weeks, we simply pass a piecemeal measure, we will fail to tackle a problem of huge importance.
  Mr. Derek Wyatt: Does my hon. Friend agree that we would do well to consider making one member of a company's board of directors legally responsible for incidents of money laundering, so that when laundering is discovered—The Guardian today quotes a figure of $1 billion and says that HSBC, Barclays bank, National Westminster bank and others are involved—directors are fined and banks are stopped from dealing?
  Tony Worthington: My hon. Friend has illustrated the value of my suggestion, which is that we should explore Members' ideas about how to tackle corruption and money laundering once and for all in a way that involves the House. We must not content ourselves with a small Bill that only pretends to do the job. I commend that idea to the House.
  3.29 pm
  Mr. David Tredinnick: The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) has informed the House of today's terrible tragedy, whereby another aircraft has been taken out of the sky. I am sure that the whole House sends condolences to the families and friends of those who have been killed.
  The Americans are coming to terms with terrorism happening within their country for the first time, but it has been happening in this country for 30 years. In 1969, I was in Northern Ireland as one of the first troops to go into the Province. I well remember marching into Londonderry in full colonial riot gear. One of the lessons that we had to learn at the start of those troubles, and which thankfully the United States has learned already, was the need for forbearance. We learned quickly that colonial riot drill banners that said on one side, "Disperse or we fire", and on the other, "Anyone crossing the line will be shot", would not work in that environment. I am not suggesting that punitive action is not necessary, but we have to go about things gently.
  The second lesson that we learned, which is pertinent, was that friends can change sides. I ask the Minister to beware of that. It is often forgotten that we went in to protect the Catholic community. I had many cups of tea on the Falls road, but a few months later those residents were effectively against us. We must be careful with the alliances that we build in Afghanistan.
  All the work that has gone in on the political front to solving the problems in Northern Ireland is a great example to the world. The work of the hon. Member for
  760
  East Antrim (Mr. Beggs), other Members representing other parties and my right hon. Friend the former Member for Huntingdon, Mr. Major, has made a huge difference. If we are to get a global resolution, we must constantly look to diplomatic initiatives, not just to the military option.
  For that reason, in 1988, I together with some other colleagues clandestinely met Yasser Arafat in Tunis. He was then a terrorist. One of my colleagues was a strongly pro-Israeli Member. We went out to talk to Arafat and to try to gain some understanding. Subsequently, we visited the west bank and saw the problems. In line with the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and my hon. Friend the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), we concluded that those problems had to be sorted out. One of the fundamental problems now is that Arafat is not responsible for Hezbollah and the other extreme groups. It is no good driving tanks into Gaza and shooting up the police station, which Arafat does control. If there is to be any chance of conflict resolution, that must be understood. In much the same way in Northern Ireland we cannot just drive tanks down the Falls road. That simply would not work.
  The other great issue out there concerns the settlements. During the third Reich the Germans talked of lebensraum, or more space. I am not suggesting that more space should be found. One cannot go into another country or these territories and simply drop one's own people on the mountain-tops without consequences. The settlements have caused much unhappiness across the whole of Arabia. We must be alerted to those facts.
  During the Gulf war I was the secretary of the Conservative Back Bench defence committee and the foreign affairs committee. Intelligence was given to us privately. I commend the Prime Minister for trying to inform the House more about what is going on today by putting papers in the Library. That war was self-contained. Now we are in Afghanistan. Let us not forget that of the 16,000 troops in the second or third Afghan war only one came out alive, and that was because the Afghan authorities let him out. This theatre is very different and we must proceed with the greatest possible caution.
  Good has already come out of this conflict, as new alliances are being forged. I had a lot to do with building alliances at the end of the cold war with newly elected Russian Members through the Future of Europe Trust, which the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald) and I set up. Russian terrorist problems are legion. Someone tried to fly an aircraft into the Kremlin not long ago, but that is often forgotten.
  We have a great opportunity to build that alliance. Iran has suddenly come in from the cold. I do not disagree with the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—we should take another look at Iraq. It has had sanctions for 10 years, yet the problem remains. Now that we have the possibility of dramatic change, let us at least address it. It is important that somebody should be finding out what the parameters are.
  At the end of this conflict, we shall probably be dealing with all the tribes in Afghanistan. The only way forward is to have a UN mandate. We cannot hand over to one group or another. We have co-operation from all the surrounding countries and we need to build on that with a mandate.

  761
  We are fortunate in the quality of our leadership in this conflict. The Prime Minister has set a good example and I cannot deny that he has done the country proud. My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and. Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) has arrived at the right time because he is a security expert and a soldier. We are blessed that he is on the Front Bench with all his experience of dealing with terrorism. He can say a lot behind the scenes. It appears that the President of the United States has found himself, too. Some of us were not 100 per cent. happy with his performance before the war broke out, but he has demonstrated great leadership at a time of great crisis.
  I speak for all my constituents when I say how much we feel for those who lost their lives in America and their families. Last night I spoke to a friend in New York who explained the ghastliness of it all, saying that they do not want to do anything except see their closest friends. The day before yesterday, I spoke to a Russian who said, "We have been living under threat, but we are now experiencing some sort of relief. We are coming out of the cold and people are understanding us—understanding the fact that Grozny was built by the Tsars and that we see it as a Russian town." Those issues must be understood.
  We live in a time of great horror and great hope. We have great hope because new coalitions are emerging and we have a tremendous opportunity to make the world a better place, notwithstanding the ghastliness of this terrible tragedy.
  3.36 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Savidge: The 11 September was not just an American tragedy but a global tragedy. As our Prime Minister saw from the start, it required, therefore, a united global response. Within hours of the atrocity, we heard some more extreme voices, such as Richard Perle, who advocated widespread indiscriminate vengeance and accelerating missile defence. On the first, we must be grateful that President Bush has shown careful judgment and listened to wiser counsels, especially those of our Prime Minister. We have had the promise that the military aspects of our response will be targeted and proportionate.
  On missile defence, the justification given for it is the fact that there are rogue states whose dictators insanely hate the United States, seek to obtain rockets and weapons of mass destruction and are sufficiently irrational not to be deterred by nuclear annihilation. On 11 September, three of those four rogue states sent messages of sympathy and support to the United States. Even if their motive was cynical—to avoid reprisals—that does not imply that they are impervious to deterrence. The fourth rogue state is Iraq. Saddam Hussein may be insane, but I believe that he has a murderous obsession with self-preservation.
  Only North Korea has attempted to test a long-range rocket, which could not have reached the United States. The test failed and has never been repeated. The Ministry of Defence, looking ahead 30 years, describes a rogue rocket attack as low risk. The Foreign Affairs Committee's report suggests that the threat has been exaggerated, probably pushed by political and commercial interests rather than strategic thinking. The Foreign Affairs Committee unanimously warned against some of
  762
  the dangers that could follow from missile defence. We have had similar warnings from the present Chief of the Defence Staff and his predecessor. Such concerns have been expressed in Parliament and in the country, where a series of opinion polls suggest that 70 per cent. of the public are concerned about the proposal, not least because of the fear that in trying to reduce a comparatively low risk we may increase far more grave dangers; not least if it breaks down the whole system of treaties, arms control and non-proliferation; not least if it divides us at a time when we need global unity; or if it starts to destabilise any of the nuclear weapons states, and that increases the risk of proliferation not only to rogue states but to terrorists.
  We should remember that terrorists can be impervious to deterrence. They can be difficult to identify and to locate, as we have seen recently. They can deliver weapons of mass destruction by van or boat, which are as impervious to missile defence as the type of attack that occurred on 11 September. Rogue states may prefer to use smuggled weapons rather than a rocket, which could invoke a pre-emptive attack before it was used, or lead to nuclear annihilation after it was used.
  The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary said in the previous debate that there was a real danger of terrorists getting hold of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons. Reference has just been made to the visit by two United States elder statesmen, Robert McNamara and Thomas Graham, to talk to Members of Parliament and Front-Bench spokesmen of the three main parties They both say that they think that there is a threat of nuclear terrorist attack within five to 10 years. Thomas Graham says that he has seen the room in which the previous South African Government made their nuclear weapons. He said that none of the apparatus in that room would be difficult to obtain and could probably be obtained in the average British city and certainly in London. Six nuclear weapons were produced, which were considerably more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb and could be packed on to a van.
  I want to compare two threats: the threat of smuggled weapons and the threat of rogue state missiles. The first is real, immediate and high. The second may not be illusory but is certainly distant in time and low.
  This is a time for extremely delicate diplomacy. I hope that our Prime Minister will use the immense respect that he has gained in the United States from his international statesmanship not just to suggest that it should be moderate in its approach to this crisis, but to encourage it to reconsider priorities with regard to missile defence, the biological weapons convention and treaties and multilateralism as a whole. This is not a time to emphasise policies that create disunity and division. We need the greatest global unity to pursue not just this campaign but the world vision that the Prime Minister expounded on Tuesday.
  I hope that the American Administration will listen to the voice of the American people. Before this tragedy, opinion polls showed that 77 per cent. of them believed that the greatest threat came from terrorism and only 10 per cent. believed that it came from rogue state missiles. Immediately after the tragedy, Newsweek did a different survey in which 72 per cent. of people said that they believed the immediate priority was airline security and other security and only 18 per cent. said that it was missile defence.

  763
  This is a time to recognise that we need international unity to fight not only terrorism and its causes, but proliferation. One of the tragic lessons of 11 September was surely that the unilateral military invulnerability of any one state is a dangerous delusion. Increasingly, the national security of every state depends on the common security of all nations.
  3.44 pm
  John Barrett: Although our thoughts are with the victims and the families and loved ones of the 7,000 who died in New York and Washington, we should give some thought to the victims of terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, refugees on the move and in camps, starving, eating grass or nothing. It is not only in the west that terrorism is ruining lives.
  We heard earlier who is responsible and that the evidence points clearly to bin Laden, al-Qaeda and the Taliban regime. I look forward to as much of that evidence being published as possible but accept that not all of it will be in the public domain. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said, we have to take on trust what we do not see published. It is important that we convince not only hon. Members and our allies, but the general public and the general public in other countries that what we are doing is right. We must be believed.
  We have identified who is co-ordinating the training for terrorism in Afghanistan and the regime that allows that to go on. Who allows it is culpable and must be stopped but serious problems will arise. Winter is about to set in and there are dangers, which have been mentioned by many hon. Members, in entering into an alliance with the Northern Alliance.
  It will require resolve by all our allies. International co-operation is vital and is developing further today, but we must not allow strains on that international alliance, if and when military action starts, to affect our attempts to deal with the humanitarian crisis that is unfolding and the aid that is already arriving in Pakistan and Afghanistan. We must give humanitarian and military objectives equal priority.
  We have had difficulty establishing the exact number of victims in New York and Washington and we do not know the number of victims in Pakistan and Afghanistan. It is good to see aid beginning to get through. In my constituency, many Pakistani families have friends and relations in Pakistan, particularly in Islamabad. They have contacted me about the crisis. I have received no letters arguing that we and our allies should move forward more quickly, but dozens of letters arguing caution. I agree with a number of points that have been raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) in the House and elsewhere.
  On the domestic front, we must give greater consideration to the risks in this country. There has already been an attack on a mosque in Edinburgh, but one of my greatest concerns is the threat that exists to nuclear power stations, among other installations, in this country. The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) mentioned the ability of terrorists to acquire nuclear weapons. Since 11 September, things have moved on. Weapons of mass destruction can be domestic airliners. Petrol tankers have been mentioned in connection with a potential attack on the Sears tower. We must look at
  764
  security at home. We in the House are aware that security measures have increased. I would like security measures outside to increase too.
  3.47 pm
  Mr. Derek Wyatt: I would like us to look beyond what will happen in the next six weeks to six months and examine institutions that we currently call world which may not be global. The globalisation of the financial markets in the 1990s happened without any Government aid. It was a decision by big banks. They went 24 hours a day, seven days a week uncontrolled by us, the elected Members of democratic western states. When we talk about the globalisation of politics, what does it mean? I wonder whether we could reflect on that for a minute or two.
  Most of the institutions that we call world—the World Trade Organisation, the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, World Bank—reside in America. They were born in the early part of the war in 1940, 1941 and 1942. They may not reflect where we are in world politics today. Perhaps the issue among the non-western democratic states is that they have a problem with that culturally, politically, economically and socially. Perhaps one of the things that we will have to give some thought to is whether those institutions can stay in America and whether the way in which they are run, the boards are run and the directors are controlled have to open up.
  An early definition of the globalisation of politics may be: one country, one vote. That might mean looking again at the United Nations and a Security Council that has a veto. Could that be the right way to proceed if, out of the terror of the past few weeks, we are to develop new systems of global organisations? I leave that question with the House.
  This matter is compounded, too, by that small thing of the 1990s called the internet. I receive daily e-mails from people in Kabul, Islamabad, Bombay and Delhi urging us not to invade or bomb because we have no idea how bad things are. I imagine that that will continue during the next six months. Thus we have an extraordinary ability to communicate with people whom we are trying to destroy, albeit not deliberately. The process is far more complicated socially because of the way in which we are able to interact as global citizens. I do not believe that the world organisations fully comprehend the pace at which the world has moved against the institutions that we currently call "world".
  We have had a half discussion about the laundering of money. This House has always been critical of the moving of money by Swiss banks in Geneva and Zurich, but we are just as guilty. London banks have laundered many billions of pounds and we have allowed it. It simply cannot be right that the boards of directors get away with that scot free. We must look again at our banking regulations in the City. If banks such as HSBC and Citibank are global, as they say they are, there must be a global way to regulate, organise or restructure them. Given that we will not get it from the World Bank or the IMF, we as politicians must give a lead.
  I want to look at some of the cultural implications. We have two of the most magnificent external organisations in the world: the BBC World Service and the British Council. I was pleased to find in my mail this morning the "open minds" commitment from the British Council.

  765
  An additional £1 million is being given from today to establish much greater contact in the Arabic and the Islamic worlds. It is strange that that has not happened already, but we must give much more consideration to the cultural implications of the relationship between, in a crude sense, Christians and Muslims. That is one of the fundamental issues.
  The BBC World Service has done a phenomenal job. It is the only trusted service in Afghanistan—indeed, it is the only radio service in Afghanistan, extraordinarily. It has done amazing translations and has broadcast 24 hours a day in the past three weeks, and we should be truly proud of it. Its staff have worked heroically to bring that about.
  To build on that, the House must consider whether we could establish something between a Nobel prize and an Oscar. We have awarded achievement scholarships for 100 years or so; is there not a way in which those could work the other way round, so that British young people between the ages of 18 to 30 could study in non-Christian countries and better see the relationship between the west and the middle east? It would be good to work on that idea.
  Four weeks ago, I was with three other hon. Members in Tunisia. In a serious discussion with the Tunisian cultural Minister, he explained, "We are Arabic and Muslim, but we were also French. We have two languages, Arabic and French, but the internet is 98 per cent. English. In one generation, written Arabic is disappearing from our culture because of the implications of English." We take it for granted that people will speak English, but we do not understand the cultural power of English and how it is affecting the middle east and the far east. The power of the English language has deep cultural implications, and we should consider them carefully.
  3.54 pm
  Mr. Andrew Selous: I wholeheartedly support the Prime Minister's statement and that of the Leader of the Opposition, and the remarks made by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  We must in due course use our influence with the United States of America to urge them to address the reasons for the hatred of America and the west that is prevalent in the middle east. I think in particular of the several thousand militant madrassas that are training underprivileged children in Pakistan. Last week, one of the students of those madrassas was quoted as saying, "We will come after you. We will come into your schools and your playgrounds. We will get your children."
  It will avail us nothing if we manage to dispose of Mr. bin Laden and his network if his place is taken by hundreds of others with similar views. It is extremely important that we urge on the US the extreme importance of a fair and even-handed foreign policy, particularly in relation to Israel and the Palestinians. The US must also pay more attention to the positive promotion of the American image and to showing what good humanitarian and development work the US does in other parts of the world.
  To avoid charges of hypocrisy against the US, it is absolutely vital that we urge the US to take all further possible steps to stop the funding of terrorist organizations
  766
  within the US itself. This country, among others, has been the recipient of funds of terrorist organisations, which have been used to ill effect against our own people. Our constituents are entitled to ask that we urge the Government to stress the importance of that to America.
  Several hon. Members have spoken about the importance of civil defence, which needs to be urgently addressed. The Government need urgently to consider issues such as the safety of our food and water supply. Speaking as a former Territorial Army soldier, I hope that the Government will look carefully at using our reserve forces in a much greater civil defence capacity. The US national guard is now mobilised to a huge extent. Our reserve forces are extremely capable and could shoulder a great deal of civil defence responsibility at little cost to the public purse.
  Before I came to this House I worked in the London insurance market, and I have friends and colleagues who work in tall, prominent buildings in our financial district. It is perfectly reasonable for any employee working on the upper floors of a tall building to ask their employer what steps they are supposed to take for their own safety, should an aircraft crash into the middle of the building. I urge the Government to speak with employer organisations and City authorities to ensure that some thought is given to the safety of employees who work at the top of tall buildings.
  Many of my constituents have told me that they are extremely pleased that Parliament was recalled three days after the events of 11 September and has been recalled again today. We do not know how events will unfold over the next few days. Calls have been made already in this debate for Parliament to return again next week, perhaps on Thursday or Friday. If we are to establish this House as the prime place in which important debates about the international situation take place, I urge that the House be recalled again towards the end of next week.
  3.59 pm
  Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: When we were recalled to this Chamber three weeks ago, I remember thinking that these were extraordinary times. As news is still coming in today about another possible terrorist atrocity, the memories of three weeks ago are brought back, although the aftershock of those events has yet to subside.
  Over the past three weeks I have been moved by the compassion and resolve that I have seen throughout the country, not least among people in my constituency. In the past two weeks the British people have shown their support in many ways. I pay particular tribute to the firefighters in my constituency, who collected more than £8,000 for the families of their heroic colleagues who died in New York.
  All over the country we have seen, outside post offices and town halls, queues of people wishing to sign books of condolence. It is important for us to remember that the British people have held prayer services for the victims in churches throughout the land—and not just in churches, but in mosques, Sikh gurdwaras, Hindu temples and other temples.
  Our compassion is best defined not only by its strength but by its breadth. Although most of us have stood together against terrorism, a tiny few have added to the horror of 11 September. Since the attacks in New York,

  767
  Pennsylvania and Washington, we have seen a spate of reprisals in this country, mostly directed at Asians. If we are determined to root out terrorism, those acts of terror cannot be allowed to escape justice, either. I very much support the measures that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary outlined yesterday in Brighton.
  It is easy to categorise people in this day and age, but let us not forget that the turban and the beard are worn by people of more than one religion. They are worn by Muslims, but also by Sikhs; they are not a badge of fanaticism. My own grandfather proudly wears a turban and a beard, and he wore them with great pride for king and country in Burma, in the conflict between 1939 and 1945—and in that conflict many of his colleagues died for king and country wearing turbans and beards.
  Last week we saw a leaflet produced by the British National party, showing the World Trade Centre in ruins, and containing the words:
  "Islam creates ferocious hatred, spawning psychotic mass murderers … and vicious rioters in our towns".
  That is a false and ignorant statement. Such intemperate language is disloyal to our nation, and I hope that the new legislation to outlaw discrimination on the basis of religion will help to tackle it.
  It is particularly important at the moment to reassure the Muslim communities both at home and abroad that we are not at war with Islam. Muslims are not the enemies of the British people. I commend the actions of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last week in meeting the representatives of the ethnic communities, especially the Muslim groups, in Downing street.
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary also deserves to be commended for his handling of the difficult task that he faced last week with his diplomatic trip to Iran and Israel. Our international coalition is strengthened by its breadth. If we ask Islamic countries to stand with us against terrorism, they must be made to feel that they stand with us on even and solid ground, and that is what I believe we are doing. I hope that the recent visit to meet the Israelis and the Palestinians will prove to be one of a number of turning points in the search for an acceptable and lasting peace for both the communities there.
  As I said, it is easy to have certain views about one community or another. My mind goes back to when I was at university, when a friend of mine, Nasser Masri, was always late to return to lectures when we came back from the holidays. He always returned a week after the rest of us, and we asked why, what was going on? What was wrong with Nasser? After a while, he overcame his embarrassment and told us. His crime was to have been born a Palestinian, in Ramallah, so every time he returned to his studies in the United Kingdom, he was detained for a week.
  Such measures breed anger and create difficult circumstances. We are right to ensure that diplomatic discussions are opened between the Israelis and the Palestinian people. I am pleased to see the Foreign Secretary's measures designed to bring that about.
  I had a message earlier today from the two mosques in my constituency of Gloucester. People there were very concerned about the remarks of a former Prime Minster, reported today, about their views on what happened on 11 September. I said that I would be happy to put across their view that what happened on that clay was not only a
  768
  crime but a crime against religion and a crime against all of us. It was a crime against civilisation, and they totally condemn it.
  4.6 pm
  Mr. Richard Allan: I find it ironic that on a day when I am speaking in a debate on the international security situation, the former Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, is splashed across the front pages of the newspapers. It was Lady Thatcher who inspired me to get involved in party politics in the first place, at a time of similar international crisis towards the end of the 1980s, when the former Soviet Union was breaking up, and I felt less than confident in the ability of the then Prime Minister to keep us all from nuclear destruction. Now here we are at a time of equally significant international crisis in terms of the possible repercussions of our actions.
  I speak as someone who counts himself a friend of America and the Americans. It already been acknowledged in the debate that there has been a latent anti-Americanism, particularly on the left, in British politics. I remember a conversation I had some years ago with American friends whom I had made in Latin America, when I had gone through all the things that I disliked about America. My friend said, "Essentially, you're saying we're all like Ronald Reagan." I said, "Yes, that's it; you've got it." She replied, "So can I assume that you're all like Margaret Thatcher, and share her views?" I realised that we had been engaged in the grossest form of stereotyping of the Americans, which we would never accept if we were talking about an ethnic minority or any other grouping, yet somehow it had seemed acceptable.
  Since then, and since entering the House, I have made good friends with many American politicians. Last year I visited Representative Dennis Kucinich, who showed me that there was a huge variety in American pluralist politics, which we do not always see from this side of the Atlantic. We have to understand that America is a complex nation, with a very pluralist political system.
  Speaking as a friend of the United States and of American citizens in general, I think it is important that we define what our friendship means. The United States faces a difficult situation. It needs to plan for the future and understand how it should respond, and it comes to us, their friends, to ask about that.
  My experience is that in such circumstances a casual friend will not bother, will not listen and is not interested. A good friend will listen uncritically and say, "I'll support you wholeheartedly. I'll give you whatever you want." Our very best friends, however, will listen critically to what we say and then tell us what they really think. They will not just assume that what we say is correct. They will put our interests ahead even of their friendship with us—and that is the position that we should take now towards the United States. We should be that country's very best friends, listening to what it has to say but not scared to criticise.
  The Opposition, too, should have that relationship with the Government. We do not wish the Government to fail; we wish them to be successful in working with the United States—but we cannot be expected to be entirely uncritical. That would be a derogation of our duty as a friend of the United States.
  Two concerns have been raised with me. I had a public meeting in the constituency last week, because I had had a lot of mail on the subject and lot of e-mail urging

  769
  caution. More than 50 people came to the meeting, which was called at very short notice. The notes of caution came through, and two aspects particularly concern me. First, I was told about the impact on community relations, which has rightly been spoken about a great deal today. It was put to me that there is genuine and palpable fear in many communities in the United Kingdom. That fear is likely to increase as and when the prospect of military action arises.
  We must also be realistic about how we are making people in our communities feel. Many people properly maintain close cultural and family ties with people in the affected regions. We believe in strong families and consider that it is right for people to maintain such links. They will now feel an immense tug. Norman Tebbit's cricket test is irrelevant. It is a perfectly natural human response, and nothing Islamic, to feel concern for one's friends and relatives in a zone that is threatened by conflict. That anxiety will be magnified if the conflict is to involve troops in the country that one regards as one's home.
  For example, in the second world war, Australian Germans were allies of the United Kingdom and would have had no truck with the Nazi regime, but natural human emotion would have meant that they felt very distressed about the bombing raids against Germany. We are facing a testing and difficult time in which we must be not only tolerant but understanding. We must also show political leadership.
  The Home Secretary struck a good note when the media dragged in the few voices on the fringe, as they will do in such circumstances, that were giving the anti-American line. He merely said that those people were being silly. It is very important for us, as politicians, to maintain that line. Involvement in terrorism or the incitement of violence is serious, but let us not get on our high horses when people are dragged up to express their opposition. If we disagree, let us say that it is silly but not get on our bandstands and stir things up even more because, as has been pointed out, it is the British National party that will fill the void. I hope that we are responsible and understand the difficulties faced by members of our community as military action becomes increasingly likely.
  I want to deal briefly with the implications of the recent events for international justice. We may be moving into a new era in which our opinions and actions will be checked for consistency as never before. The history of the cold war is littered with stories of different countries funding groups that carried out terrorist acts throughout the world. That has been happening since the second world war. We now have a chance to start to understand terrorism for what it is—murder. Whether terrorism is committed by Colombians who think that they are operating against guerrillas on behalf of the state, by the IRA or loyalists, or by anybody else, it involves acts of murder, none of which are so gross as that which was committed on 11 September. We should never fund or support murder. We must consider mechanisms for dealing with murderers as we always have done in this country: primarily by judicial means and not by summary execution or by sending in troops. Troops may be required, as they have been in Northern Ireland, to carry out the requirements of
  770
  justice. There may be no other means of dealing with the situation, but our primary recourse should be the judicial method.
  The formation and building of the International Criminal Court will be crucial if we are to move forward. There are people who deserve to be tried but, because of human rights concerns, cannot be sent back to the countries where the request for trial was made. We cannot sacrifice one aspect for another and say that human rights are no longer important when people are suspected of terrorism. We must satisfy the need for human rights to be upheld and the need to deal with terrorism. I believe that an international justice system will help us to solve that problem, but we must be subject to it just as much as we expect others to be.
  I still have an element of hope. I believe that we can achieve our objectives only by sticking with our principles of international law. I sincerely hope that the Prime Minister achieves success in being the best friend of America by guiding it towards the most appropriate response to the awful murders of 11 September.
  4.14 pm
  Mr. John Smith: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me an opportunity, albeit a brief one, to speak in this very important debate. I have been sitting in the Chamber for most of the day. The standard of most contributions was first class and the debate has helped us to develop a number of ideas.
  In the short time that I have, I want to concentrate on one matter: the implications of 11 September for NATO. Along with other hon. Members, I am a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, which has an important summit this weekend in Ottawa. It will be the biggest gathering of transatlantic parliamentarians since the horrors of 11 September, in respect of which there are a number of issues that we must address as Members of the House and as delegates.
  I have heard hon. Members refer time after time to the scale of what happened, but I sometimes think that it cannot sink in. I had the misfortune of seeing the events of 11 September unfold live on television, as I am sure many other people did. A television was switched on in the office at the time, and what we saw resembled the outtakes of a disaster movie. It did not look real. For many people, even after reading about what happened in the papers day after day, I do not think that the reality, implications and scale of what happened have sunk in.
  As time has passed, the situation has, in some respects, got worse. After a few days, people are saying that it all happened over there in America and that they are glad that no action has been taken and that the Americans have sat back. However, the House must be absolutely clear that the implications of what occurred are enormous and unprecedented. A threshold was crossed on that day which will affect the security environment in which we live and the security threats that we face. Most importantly, its effect will be felt in the way in which we react and reconfigure our defences to confront the problem.
  In 20 minutes, more innocent civilians were killed in New York than have been killed during 30 years of the horror of terrorism in Northern Ireland. Without the heroism of the emergency services and the courage of New Yorkers, more people would have been killed in that

  771
  single event than have been killed through acts of terrorism—within the terms that are generally used to define it—in the history of mankind.
  The implications are enormous. As a Parliamentary Private Secretary, I played a tiny role in discussing the strategic defence review with Back Benchers on both sides of the House. We considered the terrorist threat, just as NATO did, but it was nothing like what we confronted on 11 September. In the SDR and the foreign policy document that guided it, terrorism was seen as an asymmetric threat, alongside organised crime, drug dealing, environmental disasters and displacement of populations. After 11 September, however, it will have to be considered in a very different light.
  NATO will also have to be considered differently. Under article 24 of the NATO strategic concept, we addressed in Washington in 1999 the fear of terrorist attacks and asymmetric warfare. Again, however, the scale and unexpectedness of what happened on 11 September was never once contemplated. It was never dreamed that a number of passenger jets, laden with fuel, would be used as weapons of mass destruction. We could forget missiles and the nuclear bomb; the scale of the destruction that occurred was the equivalent of that which would be produced by a small nuclear device. What took place was beyond human reason, which is what makes it so difficult for us to deal with it.
  First, I ask Ministers seriously to consider formally revising article 24 so that it includes military actions as a legitimate response to terrorist threats from a body out of area. That must be written into the charter to make it absolutely clear for the future. Secondly, there has been much talk about the number of NATO allies that will participate in whatever action is taken, and about the inclusion of some countries and the exclusion of others. The truth is that most NATO allies were incapable of contributing to any sort of action because they do not have the necessary defence capabilities.
  I believe that NATO will now have to review and redouble its efforts to ensure that member states achieve the defence capability goals that it set in Washington in 1999. It must ensure that, if future terrorist threats arise, we are in a proper position to respond in military terms. I do not believe for one second that military means alone will provide any sort of solution to such a threat, but we must consider the flexibility and mobility of forces, as well as their sustainability in distant fields of action. Most important, we must consider interoperability. Our forces must be able to communicate with each other. NATO must bear in mind that we could not send a force consisting of all those different member forces to Uzbekistan or the Persian gulf to mount a combined operation at such a distance.
  We must also consider whether NATO now needs a specific anti-terrorist arm or unit within the alliance that can be called on, not in the event of something like this happening again but to prevent it from ever happening. Everyone suspects that we will not see the same atrocity and outrage again and that another asymmetric attack will take place—a completely unexpected attack, of an entirely different nature. That is the threat that we face, and I think we must consider the implications in our own review and our own foreign policy.
  This is not a war on Islam. In Wales, we have the oldest Muslim community in the United Kingdom, and the oldest continuously existing mosque. When I met members of
  772
  our Muslim community, they were unanimous in condemning what had taken place. One local leader, Mansour Ahmed, made it absolutely clear—we should bear this in mind—that he was a Welsh Muslim first and, by definition, a British Muslim first. The overwhelming majority of Muslims in this country are in absolute agreement with that.
  Let us be careful, however. I want to touch on one final issue. I may be stating the obvious, but we should be aware—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. Time is up.
  4.22 pm
  Mr. Humfrey Malins: Many may imagine my Surrey constituency to be a prosperous, middle-class area. In some respects it is, but many will not know that Woking contains the oldest mosque in the country and that a large number of people with a Pakistani Muslim background have been settled in Woking, contributing enormously to the community and its welfare, for some years.
  I echo what was said by the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) when I say that all my experience of conversing with dozens of Muslims in the Woking area suggests that we are talking not about a clash with Islam but about something entirely different. We are talking about a clash between those of good will from all religions and those of bad will, wherever they may be. I have spoken to the leaders of the Woking community in the past few days. They are very responsible—there is a seriously responsible imam. My Labour opponent in the last general election was a member of the mosque, and a more decent person one would never find, however far one travelled. He was a very good man indeed.
  All those Muslims in Woking are united in their condemnation of what happened on 11 September. Never let us in this House feel that a wedge can be driven between us and those outside who are of good will. It is a united front that we must all show—and I speak on behalf of Woking when I say that the message from that constituency could not be stronger in support of what this Government are trying to do, with the rest of the free world.
  About eight years ago, I formed the Immigration Advisory Service. It replaced the United Kingdom Immigration Advisory Service, and it exists in eight, 10 or 12 offices around the United Kingdom, giving free legal help and advice to those with rights of appeal under immigration law and those with asylum problems. It strikes me as odd, but we must realise that we in this country have probably the best voluntary sector in Europe—or the best Government-supported organisation, in terms of money—giving help to those with rights of appeal under immigration law. I do not just congratulate the Conservative Government on increasing IAS funding until 1997; I congratulate the last Labour Government on continuing to do so.
  The organisation now employs hundreds of qualified lawyers around the country, giving the best possible advice to those with rights of appeal under immigration and asylum law. Many Members on both sides of the House will have had cause to send to the organisation

  773
  constituents who were worried and upset. Long may it and what it stands for flourish: I believe that it will be called on particularly over the next few months.
  Partly because of my connection with the IAS and, of course, my Woking interests, I travelled to Pakistan and Azad Kashmir not long ago. I visited a town called Mirpur. Some know Mirpur. It is a tough town. Many of my constituents originate from it and many return to it for holidays. While I was there, three people came up to me and said, "Mr. Malins, I am from Woking. What is happening about the position in so-and-so road?"
  Two or three things struck me about Mirpur. We should never forget that it is a very troubled area. The nuclear experiments carried out by India and Pakistan not so long ago caused a great deal of worry to many people and illustrate the fragility of the situation there. The same can be said of Kashmir, where there is an on-going problem.
  I was also struck by the sheer inhospitability of the climate. When I was there, the temperature was well over 40 deg centigrade. It is mercilessly hot at times, and the mountains were mercilessly difficult to climb up and down. It is a very bleak terrain, and Afghanistan must be the same as it is next door. Within a few weeks, the weather in Afghanistan will become much worse. It will be awful, and there will be a huge humanitarian need in that part of the world. I applaud anything that the Government do—I am sure that they will be supported throughout the House—in relation to humanitarian needs over the next few months.
  I remark in passing that one of the scourges of our country—I say this with my judicial hat on—is heroin, which has such a terrible effect on so many of our youngsters who appear before me in court. Heroin is one of the nastiest things ever to have hit this country of ours, and one of the most destructive for young people. It is sad, is it not, that Afghanistan is, as far as I can see, the source of the heroin that comes to this country. We will have to watch out for that.
  The area is troubled generally, however. All of us in the House must focus on the need, over the next few months, to ensure that we do what we can to help the people—an awful lot of them—who will be displaced by a combination of terribly sad events.
  I have been in the House for a long time, and I know that we spend much of our time involved in party politics. I suppose that is the nature of our lives in this place. I believe that over the next few months the spotlight will be on the House as it has never been before and may not be again in our lifetime. We shall have to consider some of the most critical issues relating to asylum, terrorism and immigration. These are issues that cause high feelings and emotions.
  The House must pass the test over the next few months. The best thoughts among us all must be allowed to coalesce to help us form a policy that will help to take us ahead. I have never felt—I am sure that I speak for many Members—such a heavy duty upon me as a parliamentarian to get things right over the next few months. We may have but one chance. We must all contribute as best we can in a spirit of utter co-operation.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: To be under attack is to be under a microscope. The response an individual makes defines clearly who they are. Faced with criticism and hatred, a person can show either courage or cowardice, calm resolve or reckless retaliation. Perhaps no response is as fitting as that of self-examination—that is to look at one's life, to examine it and to face its failings, but also to rediscover what is good. I believe that a nation is no different.
  If the attack of 11 September was an attack on more than people and buildings—and it was—we must use it to re-examine our way of life. If there be any virtue in the way that we live, we should proclaim it as a memorial to those who died and as a covenant with those who share our values throughout the world in which we shall continue to live governed by the principles of tolerance, democracy, freedom and the rule of law. Those are principles that we hold precious.
  Our tolerance gives us the humility to recognise that ours is not the only way of living. Our democracy establishes rights for those who oppose and seek to change our way of life. Our freedom means that no human being is forced to subject himself to another's will. However, the rule of law binds together each one of those principles under a supreme authority, which is the principle of equality.
  In our way of life no individual is above the law. The rights and freedoms that our democracy establishes are the equal rights and freedoms of equal citizens. The rule of law stands in judgment against the thief who would take these privileges for himself only to use them to steal the same rights and freedoms from his neighbour.
  To those who seek to turn our tolerance into their tyranny and terror we say, "You do not understand us. Our freedom does not arise because we care not what our neighbours do. Our freedom is born out of the dignity and respect in which we hold them, believing them to enjoy that same right to choose their way of life and determine their own actions as we claim for ourselves."
  Freedom is a virtue of double worth. It ennobles the one who receives it. It gives autonomy, turning a human being into a person. However, freedom also blesses the one who bestows it by turning resentful subjects into equal friends. That was the lesson that gave birth to the Commonwealth. Indeed, it is a lesson that some Commonwealth states still have to learn.
  How, then, do freedom, democracy, tolerance and the rule of law respond to those who would attack them? Do we meet terror with terror, barbarity with barbarity? That would be to cast aside the very values that we claim to be defending.
  I welcome the restraint and thoughtfulness with which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the United States President have worked during the past three weeks. However, let those who would attack our way of life know that our tolerance is not weakness—it is what gives us our dignity and strength. Let the terrorists know that our freedom is not licence and that we shall defend our freedom. Let them know that the rule of law is not impotent. We shall not seek blind vengeance but we will exact justice, for we believe that there is virtue in the way we live. We believe that there is value in the principles we hold. We believe that the dignity of each human soul comes not from enforced enslavement to another's ideal, but from the liberty to choose a life that is one's own.

  775
  In Srinagar this week, another 38 people had that liberty taken from them by a terrorist bomb. Although I welcome the Pakistan Government's co-operation with the coalition, I ask the Minister to assure the House that no matter how desirable that co-operation may be in fighting terrorism in Afghanistan, we will not overlook the complicity of General Musharraf and Pakistan in the cross-border attacks and terrorist insurgency across the line of control. Let the House be clear that our choice of friends in any coalition against terror must not include states that still actively promote terror in neighbouring countries. The price of their friendship is too high if it means being selective in the application of our principles.
  Let us also be clear that we do not confuse terrorism with human rights abuses. That both are vile and wrong does not mean that both are the same. They are not, and we do no one any service by speaking as if they were. They are different evils requiring different remedies. In precisely the same way, we must distinguish genuine civil war where freedom fighters are engaged in a military campaign of secession that is fought against a state and its legitimate military and economic targets. America, too, won her freedom from tyrannical rule, and George Washington was not a terrorist.
  Yet countries and dictators throughout the world try to brand as terrorists those who use violence to oppose them. We do liberty a disservice if, for expediency's sake, we accept that partisan interpretation. I know that it cannot have escaped the notice of at least one Foreign Office Minister that the definition of terror in currency today would have bracketed the African National Congress and Nelson Mandela together with al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.
  The Prime Minister is absolutely correct to insist that we use this tragedy as a wake-up call to the world community to rededicate itself to global justice—justice in world trade and justice for the developing world. If we are to deliver that promise, let us now raise our aid budget to the 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product that has for far too long been only a target. Injustice and poverty allow fanaticism to breed and do its work. It is no justification, but it is a precondition of terrorism.
  Finally, when the terrorists stand before their God to account for the evil that they have done, I pray that He may look at the response that their evil has engendered in us: the courage of the firefighters; the compassion of the paramedics; the solidarity and support of whole communities; the sympathy, the kindness and the acts of generosity. Let their God count all our acts of love to the terrorists benefit, so that He can indeed judge them as "The Compassionate and The Merciful".
  4.37 pm
  Mr. Bill Rammell: I speak in the debate in support of the Government's position. I do that not out of habit or a sense of duty, but as a father of two children who feels that he is living through the most frightening period that he has ever lived through. However, what we are doing seems to be the most credible way of dealing with the situation. It is not without risks, but whatever we do entails a degree of risk, and anyone who pretends otherwise is deluding himself. The Government are proposing the least worst set of options.
  What happened in New York and Washington was simply a crime against humanity. In those circumstances, the British Government were right to stand side by side
  776
  with the American people and their Government—right not only because one of our major allies had experienced an enormous atrocity committed upon its innocent civilians, but because it was only through strong support that we had any hope of influencing American actions.
  I believe that our influence has been felt. How many of us on 11 September feared that there would be a disproportionate, untargeted, knee-jerk response by the American Government? That has not happened, partly because of the influence and the advice of the British Government. We need, and we are getting. a cautious, reasoned response that will involve various elements—increased international dialogue and understanding, internal security measures, a huge and genuine expansion of humanitarian aid, but also, regrettably, a proportionate military response designed explicitly to reduce terrorist capability.
  I am not naive. I know that however determined we are to avoid civilian casualties, that may not be possible in all circumstances. That leads to enormous soul searching to judge whether we should still go ahead with military action. On balance, I believe that we should. I would simply ask those who argue that we should not go ahead with any form of military action, what are the alternative means to deal with and prevent further attacks on the scale of those in New York and Washington?
  In that regard, it was instructive to read the article in New Statesman last Friday, which laid down a challenge to 10 or 12 critics of military action who are on the left. Effectively, New Statesman asked, "If not military action, what is your alternative response?" I read the responses carefully. They were long in their critique of the historical development of American foreign policy—I agreed with much of that critique—but sadly they were short, if not non-existent, on how else we may proceed and protect ourselves.
  That is the nub of the situation. We must understand that however much we increase international aid—that needs to happen—or we desire, and should see, a different and more even-handed American stance in the middle east, or we reduce international poverty, bin Laden and al-Qaeda will still try to commit terrorist mayhem and kill tens if not hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Next time they will try to do it with chemical, biological and nuclear capability. That is the scale of the threat that we are facing and we must stand up to it.
  We also need to understand clearly what drives bin Laden and his followers. It is a hatred of the values that America and the rest of the west stand for as much as opposition to American foreign policy. Sexual equality, religious tolerance and the use of culture, entertainment and recreation as a means to personal self-fulfilment are decadence and depravity as far as bin Laden is concerned. The problem for people on the left, who have instinctively adopted an anti-American stance in the past, is that those are the very values that we hold dear. They are our values every bit as much as those of the American people and nation. That is the crisis that we face.
  I also address my remarks to some of the zealots on the right who are trying to use the present circumstances to their own political ends. I address them to the British National party and to some of the right-wing commentators who attack and question the right of anyone to question and challenge military action in the present circumstances. I have made clear my view—people who

  777
  oppose military action are both naive and wrong in the present circumstances, but I passionately defend their right to say what they think. That is what we are fighting for.
  Some of the articles that I have read in our national newspapers do not fit with the sort of debate that we should be having. This is a serious situation and everyone has a right to put forward his or her view. That right should be respected, but it is being lost at present.
  I visited the Muslim community in my constituency of Harlow last Friday. Members of that community made it clear to me that they oppose what has happened as much as I do. In that regard, the comments of Lady Thatcher this morning should be treated with silent contempt. They were insulting and that is the way that we should deal with them. When I met the Muslim community I was also struck by the fact that many of them feel that Muslims throughout the world are always under attack. I came away from the discussion convinced that, whatever else happens in the coming weeks and months, we desperately need greater dialogue and understanding between the Muslim world and the rest of the world. We must proceed with conviction.
  Therefore, we need proportionate military action, humanitarian aid and dialogue and understanding, but also greater internal security. We have not yet faced up to the way in which all our lives will be changed by what happened on 11 September. If I needed any convincing of that I got it when I arrived in Brighton on Sunday to see British police officers with sub-machine guns standing on the street corner. We need to consider all our internal security measures and that should include identity cards.
  We are in a hugely dangerous situation in which there are no easy solutions. I have one final plea. We are not going to eradicate international terrorism—that will never be possible—but we are trying to diminish its capability. In that sense, we should proceed as we are doing and support the Government's actions.
  4.44 pm
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I speak from the left and this is my first opportunity to express publicly in the House my heartfelt sympathy with the American people, among whom I have personal friends, for the barbaric attack that took place on 11 September. It was probably the worst act of terrorism in world history and it deserves a very firm response from us all.
  I am pleased that the Prime Minister and President Bush have embarked on attempts to develop diplomatic contacts with many different countries to combat terrorism. Economic and financial actions have been taken, and I happen to believe that we cannot exclude military action. However, I would support military action only on the condition that it is very carefully targeted. I do not want to return to the House in two or three weeks time and find that we are debating whether it was right for the international community, in taking military action, to have used depleted uranium or cluster bombs, as were so disgracefully used against the people of Yugoslavia.
  The greatest danger that confronts us is the use of biological weapons. Thousands of people lost their lives in New York and Washington DC, but the use of a very
  778
  small quantity of germs—that is what they are—could kill not thousands but millions. That is the perspective from which I speak. I see that as a considerable danger. The people who were willing to do what they did in New York and Washington would be willing to use any means to wipe out whole populations.
  Apart from the war against terrorism, we have to consider the problem of poverty, and I am glad that the Prime Minister addressed that issue at the Labour party conference. Poverty is the lubricant that oils the wheels of terrorism. I have no doubt about that. Many of the problems in Northern Ireland, for example, would disappear if there were a more equal distribution of wealth among the people in the Province. That is true of the world as well, and I say to the Prime Minister that poverty cannot be eradicated by the existing economic world order.
  The real cause of poverty is, in fact, the dependence on a economic system worldwide in which a relatively few people have wealth and the vast majority are poor. It is a difficult problem to solve, because many people have been won over to the idea of market economics and free trade. It is not free trade but planned trade that we want if we are to help the people of Afghanistan and other parts of the world. That will not be easy to provide, but we must do it.
  Arms have been used in Afghanistan, Rwanda and in the Congo—the Prime Minister referred to such places in Brighton—but there is no arms industry in Afghanistan, Rwanda or the Congo. We know where the arms come from: we sell them ourselves. On the very day that the disaster happened in the United States, there was the obscenity of a London international arms fair. There should be no more arms fairs in this country and we should work for a convention that will ensure that the arms trade is very tightly controlled.
  An opportunity can arise from all this. I am glad that the Prime Minister is visiting President Putin this afternoon. The Russians have suffered, but they have received scant sympathy. We have tended to see only one side of the argument over Chechnya. The Russians have suffered the bombing of apartment blocks killing hundreds of people in Moscow, a blast in a shopping arcade and a bomb in a subway. They have had terrorism on their doorstep. I am pleased that Russia and the former Soviet republics of Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan are involved with us in getting at the core of the terrorist threat that is facing us.
  Let us not be hypocritical. I am opposed to terrorism, all terrorism. I was opposed to the KLA terrorists in Kosovo—Madeleine Albright said that they were terrorists. I understand that it is possible to find information on the internet which suggests that bin Laden was helping the KLA terrorists for whom we provided air cover. The KLA bought their arms from the proceeds of the drugs trade, and I will guarantee that a considerable quantity of those drugs came from Afghanistan. Bin Laden was an agent of the CIA during its fight with the Soviet forces and has now come back to hit the people who fed him.
  If we are to be opposed to terrorism, it must be all terrorism. America has involved itself elsewhere. It has supported terrorists in trying to overthrow the Government of Cuba as well as the use of terror to subvert the democratically elected Government in Chile. Since the

  779
  second world war, no country in the world has bombed as many other countries as the United States. We must address the foreign policies of the United States and Britain. Thank God it was a Labour Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, in the 1960s and 1970s who kept us out of the Vietnam war.
  We must fight terrorism and embark on a military expedition in Afghanistan. My thoughts will go out to the people who have to fight that war and their relatives in this country. When it is over, let us have no more talk of expanding NATO without including Russia and let us have no more talk of a national missile defence capability. That is for the past—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.
  4.53 pm
  Mr. Paul Goodman: I wish to declare an interest of a kind. According to the Muslim Council of Great Britain at the time of the general election, my constituency has the highest proportion of ethnic minority members of any Conservative-held seat. According to the 1991 census, which is now 10 years out of date, up to 7,000 people of Pakistani and Kashmiri descent were living in High Wycombe, and I hope that the House will indulge me if I refer to them.
  Traditionally, compared with some other parts of the country, race relations in High Wycombe have been good. It is worth noting that they have remained good since 11 September, as they have in most of the country. I have been up and down my constituency, speaking to members of the ethnic community. Their perception of the situation is rather different from that of others. As soon as the atrocities occurred in America, the Mosque committee declared to the local media its horror at the loss of so many lives, including the lives of about 600 Muslims. Those on the committee are as horrified at what happened as any other constituent of any other colour. They have made that point forcefully to me and to other people locally. However, they are bound to consider the situation in a way that is perhaps rather different from those who live in the more prosperous, countryside parts of the constituency that surround the town.
  To a very few members of what I shall call the majority community in my constituency and elsewhere, Islam seems like a great threat. When some members of the majority community saw the television pictures of the atrocities in America, as other hon. Members and I did, they would have viewed Islam as a great, murderous, monstrous, armed, irrational threat to what has, I note, been called western civilisation. To members of the Asian community in my constituency and to me, Islam does not seem like that at all.
  I would in no sense want to stereotype my constituents, and it should be noted that many of my Asian constituents are proceeding at great speed through schools to good jobs, but it is the case that that community tends to form one of the poorer parts of the whole community in the constituency generally. Rather than being part of a powerful group that perceives itself as having great strength, they see themselves as a vulnerable, threatened minority, and they consider events differently. Again, I emphasise that local race relations have been good.
  Whereas the white majority in the country naturally feels itself emotionally bound up with the United States because of our long historical and cultural involvement
  780
  with it, my Asian constituents tend to consider things rather differently. They have forcefully told me that they believe that much of American foreign policy is mistaken. In relation to Kashmir especially, they believe that the world has not behaved with the urgency that it has sometimes shown in other cases, such as in the middle east and Northern Ireland. Of course, they are especially concerned about the current situation in Pakistan. I do not agree with every part of that point of view. I like to think of myself as a staunch supporter of the United States.
  I merely point out all that to show that, although there have been some despicable verbal and physical racist attacks throughout the country, race relations are good at the moment and the situation has been relatively peaceful. None the less, I am slightly concerned that in the longer term we could end up with two communities who consider things rather differently. I hope and believe that the majority community in High Wycombe is striving mightily to understand that people who come here, or even those who were born here with origins elsewhere, will not always look at the world in the way that they do.
  I certainly think that it is worth taking a lot of trouble to understand how the Asian community in my constituency feels, and that is true of many people locally and of those in my Conservative association. It is also worth those in the Asian community trying to understand—again, I believe that they are making a great effort to do so—why those cultural links with the United States are so strong and why many people here who saw the atrocious events of 11 September felt such outrage, horror and shock. After all, at this time, when so much of our attention lies elsewhere and as the threat of conflict lies before us, it is worth remembering that we in modern Britain, with all the diverse communities that it contains, are all in this together—or perhaps that we should be—and I hope that communities of all kinds will work together to bring about that happy conclusion.
  5 pm
  Mr. Neil Gerrard: Three weeks after New York, I do not believe that there has been any change in the feeling of horror at what happened and the feeling that the people who carried out the attacks were absolutely despicable. However, there have been some changes since the last debate when many hon. Members were concerned that there would be an over-hasty reaction and a lashing out. That has not happened and everyone should be thankful. The actions of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister certainly contributed to that not happening and to that fear diminishing, but many fears remain about innocent people being killed and the longer-term consequences of any military action.
  Although I accept and believe that there would be public support for military action against bin Laden, many people would not support sustained bombing. They would certainly not support indiscriminate bombing. Support is fragile and could very easily melt away if the wrong action were taken.
  It seems that there will be military action and I am concerned about what will happen if the first strikes do not lead to bin Laden being captured or killed or to the Taliban handing him over or changing their views, so I would still urge caution on military action.
  My constituency has the largest Pakistani community of any London constituency and I would echo much of what has been said today about the fears of Pakistani and

  781
  other Muslim communities in Britain. They are concerned about what could happen here, and I have heard stories and seen people who have been abused, threatened or even attacked. We should also recognise that many of them have fears about their country of origin. They are telling me and, I am sure, other hon. Members of their fear that the conflict could spill over into Pakistan. Let us be under no illusion: many people in Pakistan support the Taliban and have had associations with them. There is a real danger that the conflict could spill over the border into Pakistan. We must be extremely careful and try to ensure that it does not happen.
  We now have a broad and unusual coalition of states all saying that they will co-operate to deal not just with bin Laden but with international terrorism. We should try to ensure that any action that we take—even if it appears on the surface to be successful—does not lead to that coalition disintegrating, as if it does it will be impossible in the long term to deal with international terrorism.
  Everyone accepts that it will be a long haul and a long process and that we will need a variety of tactics dealing with money laundering, improving intelligence services, sharing intelligence and so on.
  Like other hon. Members, I believe that one of the most important features of that long-term strategy has to be cutting off the sources of support for the terrorists. That means looking at our foreign policy and the effects of British and American foreign policy. I do not believe that it is remotely possible to change the minds or win the hearts of the bin Ladens of this world. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that there is no common agenda possible with such people, and that is absolutely right. What we have to do is to win other hearts and minds. Our actions must not be focused solely on the recruitment of hijackers and bombers; we must consider also what conditions allow terrorists to operate successfully for a long time.
  Terrorists are able to count on a variety of support: some provide tacit support—they are not prepared to give up terrorists; some provide papers or safe houses; and some give active support. Active support is merely the tip of an immense iceberg, and it is on melting the base of that iceberg that we should concentrate our efforts. That is where changes in foreign policy really matter.
  The middle east has been mentioned by several Members, and I shall not repeat things that have already been said, but my experience of visiting the middle east and talking to refugees in the camps of the west bank, Gaza, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria is that everyone can tell visitors about the United Nations resolutions and what they say. Everyone knows what their rights are and what their rights should be.
  Such people also want to talk to visitors from other countries about the double standards of their country. If a visitor says, "Of course we are in favour of the UN resolutions. We support them. Of course we want a Palestinian state," he will be asked in return, "What have you done about it? What action have you taken to put pressure on the likes of Ariel Sharon? What have you done to tell him, not just that settlements should not be expanded, but that every single settlement that currently stands in the occupied territories is illegal under international law and UN resolutions say that they should
  782
  not be there? What have you done to deal with that?" The people point to the fact that we have taken action in other cases to enforce UN resolutions.
  We have to answer such questions; otherwise, individuals will continue to have the gut feelings that generate both tacit and active support for terrorists, and states that might have helped to deal with terrorists will feel unable to do so because they fear the reaction of their own population.
  My final point is that the issue is an international one, and it should remain so. Other Members have mentioned the role of the United Nations. We must not reach a position where the perception is that the United States and the United Kingdom are the sole arbiters of what is right or wrong and of what can or cannot be done in the conflict. It is tremendously important that the international coalition is kept in being.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order.
  5.8 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: I thank the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) for speaking on behalf of the Muslims in his constituency. The fears that he articulated on their behalf are echoed among my constituents in the east end of London.
  No cause on earth can justify the outrages of 11 September, but matters were made worse—if such a thing is possible—by hearing claims that those who carried them out would go to heaven. That struck me as larding terrorism with religious obscenity—it was a perversion of religion to make such a claim. What sort of heaven would welcome mass murderers—killers of innocent men, women and children? If such a grotesque place exists, Hitler, Pol Pot and Vlad the Impaler must already be there. I am one of those who believe that religious fundamentalism, be it Jewish, Christian or Islamic, is a curse. History reveals that religious fanaticism ranks with poverty and disease as one of the biggest killers of human beings.
  I add my voice to those who have congratulated the Prime Minister and the Government on the stand that they have taken thus far, and I welcome the stand taken by President Bush, who has surprised and amazed people in this country and in the United States of America, but I feel compelled to echo some of the caveats. I was a Member of Parliament when we were busy arming Saddam Hussein in the war against Iran. We said that he was a despot who killed his own people, but we still supplied him with arms.
  We have already heard about the western support that was given to bin Laden. We know that the Taliban were heavily supported by the CIA. I say that not to be recriminatory, but to remind people that all of this is based on the bankrupt, dangerous policy of saying that my enemy's enemy is my friend. We should remember that before we jump into bed with the Northern Alliance.
  Like the hon. Member for Wycombe, I wish to say a few words on behalf of my thousands of Muslim constituents in West Ham and tens of thousands of Muslims in Newham, as well as the hundreds of Afghan refugees in my constituency. I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) when I say that all those people are apprehensive and many are frightened about what will happen next. Many have family and friends in Afghanistan and the bordering areas

  783
  of Pakistan. Action, which I agree must be taken, must be proportionate and, at all costs, avoid loss of innocent civilian lives. It is pointless to bomb the rubble of Afghanistan or to cause the destabilisation of Pakistan. Yes, action should be taken but we do not want to import a conflict in Afghanistan to the streets of the east end or to our towns and cities. I trust that Ministers are aware of these dangers. They cannot repeat often enough assurances to our Muslim constituencies that they are aware of those concerns and will act accordingly.
  In that context, I must join others in deploring the reported words of Baroness Thatcher, who spoke of Muslim terrorism as though somehow the sins of bin Laden belong to Islam and all the different groups in the Islamic world. It is insulting to law-abiding Muslims. We do not refer to terrorism in Northern Ireland as Christian terrorism although there are underlying religious currents in the actions of the nationalist and loyalist groups there. A period of silence from Baroness Thatcher can only help the situation; so far, none of her words has helped.
  On a light-hearted and personal note, speaking as Chairman of the Works of Art Committee, I have just taken delivery of an 8 ft tall marble statue of the Baroness that weighs just under two tonnes. I am looking for a location for it. Already, I am having difficulties, and clearly I must now cross off all the mosques as possible locations.
  I am looking forward to the Home Secretary's proposals to tighten laws against terrorism. People who use the language of terrorism to incite hatred and murder should be treated as terrorists. I am also looking forward to proposals to allow refugees and economic migrants to work. It is scandalous how we treat these people. They want to work but are told that they cannot. We are forcing them into areas of uncertain employment and we are inflicting poverty on them. It is unacceptable. I look forward to a proper immigration policy. We are lucky to live in a democratic, free society, but we need always to protect our freedoms against those who exploit and abuse them, and I am not talking just about terrorism.
  I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) make points about identity cards. I have opposed them in the past and still need to receive assurances on how they might be used, if we are to introduce them. We need that debate, but if identity cards can be used in France, I see no reason why we should fear them here.
  There is a justifiable case for a mandatory national DNA data bank. It would be helpful not only against terrorism but against crime and in identification following cataclysmic accidents. Most of those who died in the twin towers will never be identified because there is no way to do so. A compulsory DNA record is essential in this country, as it could be elsewhere.
  We rightly cherish our personal freedoms in this country, but the world has changed and we should not shrink from taking action that balances our personal freedom with the safety of all our people.
  5.15 pm
  Joan Ruddock: I add my condolences to those already given in the House.
  On 11 September, I was in South Africa and along with so many millions watched in shock and disbelief as the horror unfolded on television. My greatest fear was that
  784
  there would be immediate and brutal retaliation. It did not happen. I too pay tribute to Ministers, to the Prime Minister in particular and indeed to the United States Administration for their wisdom in creating the international coalition and the climate in which a considered response has become possible.
  Many of my constituents, while condemning the atrocities, have urged me to speak out against military action and in favour of peace. They are right in believing that I am a peacemaker, though never a pacifist. I have always believed that the international community should have as many people trained in conflict resolution as in military strategy. Indeed there are countless examples of prolonged terrorist wars ending only by concerted peacemaking, and of past terrorists holding political power in modern democracies. However, the events of 11 September are wholly different. The unspeakable horror of the attacks on innocent civilians could reflect no justification. For me, it is not a choice between war and peace. It is a matter of justice—justice that can and should be universal.
  International law requires us to bring the suspected perpetrators of terrorism to trial. I accept with a heavy heart that that is no longer an option. The Taliban regime not only failed to hand over Osama bin Laden but have offered him their military protection. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has reiterated, the military response must be proportionate and targeted. Its aim must be the destruction of the military base from which the terrorist acts of 11 September were organised. That is a limited military objective. It should remain limited.
  "The world will never be the same" has already become a clichè in respect of 11 September, but I hope that it might prove to be the case because our world has rarely been united in pursuit of justice. Too often, nations subscribing to the thesis "My enemy's enemy is my friend" have colluded in the narcotics trade, in money laundering and in illegal arms dealing. Too often, powerful nations have fuelled regional conflicts to preserve economic interests and turned a blind eye to terrible human suffering in countries where they have no similar economic interest.
  On Tuesday, the Prime Minister spoke of reordering the world. The international coalition is charged with the task of rooting out and destroying support for terrorism in all its forms. We can all subscribe to that, but it will be self-defeating if it does not embrace a wider justice. Justice for the Palestinians must be one of its priorities not only because, as many have said, it is right of itself, but because continuing injustice in the heart of the Arab world inevitably provides a recruiting ground for fanatics.
  Our challenges lie not just in the mistakes of the past, but with our current behaviour. The world community, primarily under the auspices of the United Nations, has sought to conclude international treaties that would make our world a safer place. A reordered world would require the United States to adhere to the anti-ballistic missile treaty, to support an international criminal court and to ratify the convention on anti-personnel land mines and the Kyoto protocol on climate change.
  Global warming poses a security threat as great as any international terrorist organisation. Food and water supplies for millions are already jeopardised, whole land masses are already threatened with submersion, and freak storms already wreak havoc throughout the globe

  785
  with incredible economic consequences. A new, global, energy-security paradigm is urgently needed. A rapid shift to renewable energy by the west would pave the way to oil independence and the removal of nuclear power plants as terrorist targets. Most significantly, cutting our output of global greenhouse gases and developing benign forms of energy would be a powerful signal to the developing world.
  We in the west are right to be proud of our shared democracy, openness and freedoms, but they depend on the exercise of justice and the rule of law, and those must determine our way ahead. We may need to work with the Northern Alliance now, but we must ensure that we do not help it to impose another terrible regime on the people—particularly the women—of Afghanistan. We must commit ourselves not just to massive humanitarian relief now, but to UN protection and the future rebuilding of Afghanistan, as we have done in the Balkans.
  I represent a multi-ethnic community with constituents with roots in every part of the globe. A minority are Muslims, a minority refugees and a few are from Afghanistan. Many have appreciated the reassurances of respect for Islam given by my right hon. Friends, and the Home Secretary's announcement of new laws on incitement. However, many are also concerned lest new security measures fall disproportionately on people of colour. I know that my right hon. Friends will understand that.
  On 11 September, the peoples of the most powerful state on earth experienced a profound and unique vulnerability that no military defence can overcome. As we seek to end the threat from the perpetrators of those acts, we shall need to remember that we all share that vulnerability. In Afghanistan, we shall need to use the minimum force necessary and to take every possible step to protect innocent civilians. We shall need to look again at the desperate plight of the world's poorest people and not allow the economic consequences of 11 September to fall on them through reduced aid and development funding.
  We shall need to look again at the World Trade Organisation and listen more carefully to the leaders of the developing world about fairness in our dealings, particularly with their agricultural produce. In truth, we shall need to exercise the greatest caution and wisdom if we are not to destabilise whole areas of Asia and the middle east, giving rise to more odious and dangerous regimes.
  As ever, the greatest task ahead of the international coalition will be not the waging of the war but the winning of a lasting peace in the re-ordered world of which the Prime Minister so eloquently spoke.
  5.23 pm
  Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell): I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House on what is undoubtedly a crucial moment in the history of the civilised world.
  We have all suspected for a number of years that we live in a dangerous and, perhaps, increasingly unpredictable world. The events of 11 September proved clearly that the worst really can happen, perhaps in a way that none of us had imagined. If there is one lesson that I
  786
  hope our Government and other Governments in the western world will learn from 11 September it is that we need to be prepared for the worst. What happened in New York was terrible; what could happen if weapons of mass destruction were to be used against our cities and our people is frightening beyond measure.
  In recent days we have seen that events such as those that took place on 11 September are not limited to the United States, Europe or the NATO area. A horrendous attack has taken place in Kashmir and only this afternoon we learned that an airliner has been shot down out of the skies over the middle east, with many people killed. We must find a way to remove the hatred and terror from this planet and to create a more law-abiding, peaceful and potentially beneficial environment for all mankind.
  Clearly, we should express our support not just for the victims of the events in New York but for those who have suffered in Kashmir and in today's attack over the middle east.
  We should send our thanks to all those who have responded so nobly and selflessly to help the victims of the recent terror attacks. I pay particular tribute to those from this country who went out to counsel the families of the victims and provide support in their hour of bereavement. Many of those who gave up their time to do that are volunteers from our best known voluntary organisations in this country. They deserve our praise, and I hope that the Government will ensure that the process of support and counselling is not limited to the time when those families are in New York, but will continue afterwards.
  I also pay tribute to those in this country who have done so much to raise money for the New York disaster fund. For example, the local fire service in my constituency held a fundraising morning last week at Epsom fire station to raise funds for their colleagues in New York.
  I have a small Islamic community in my constituency, but I did not turn to them to seek their opinion, looking for condemnation of what happened in New York. I did not need to. I know them well as friends, as well as residents of the local community, and there is no need to ask about their attitude to what happened. They would condemn it, as would any right-minded citizen of this country.
  However, like many Islamic communities in this country, they fear what might happen to them in the aftermath. It is undoubtedly our duty, as leaders in our respective communities, to set an example to all the people whom we represent, and to show that we need to support the Islamic community in this country. It is not they who carried out that horrendous act.
  I ask our broadcasters to think about the groups to which they give air time. There is a danger that they may look to publicise the views of a minority at the expense of the views of the majority, and that does no favours to the majority of the Muslim community.
  We need to focus on three issues in the aftermath of the events of recent weeks. First, there is the need for a balanced response. I share the pleasure of other Members of the House that the United States has taken time to think about its response, and has not responded in an abrupt, hasty and potentially damaging manner.
  None the less, we need to take tough action; we have no option. The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell)—I see that he has now left the Chamber—was correct to

  787
  say that when dealing with an enemy who is willing to attack without thought, concern or consideration for civilian life, we have no choice but to respond in a way that tries to stamp out that threat properly once and for all.
  We need to balance our response by providing the aid that is needed for the millions who have been removed from their homes in Afghanistan and who today are wandering the deserts looking for food.
  Undoubtedly, we have a political responsibility to do what this country has always done, and try to find solutions for the world's trouble spots. The western world has played an active role over many years in trying to solve the problems in the trouble spots of the middle east, and to support a peace process between Israel, the Palestinians and the Arab world. As in other areas that threaten to create the environment that provides a recruiting ground for the terrorists, those efforts need to be redoubled.
  The second challenge is that we need a pragmatic approach to civil liberties in this country. We must ensure that the rights of the individual do not take priority over the rights of society as a whole. While protecting the rights of the individual, we also have to protect our people collectively. That means that we should keep the possibility of identity cards under consideration, if our security forces and police advise us that that is the right step to take.
  Last week a senior police officer said to me that there are people in this country—they may come here as asylum seekers or refugees, or perhaps through conventional channels—who are a genuine threat to our society. If we need a more regulated society to ensure that such people cannot take action that undermines our society, so be it. We should expect anyone who seeks to live here to respect the security of our society, and in my view, if there are people who do not do that, we should not be afraid to withdraw from them the welcome that we first offered them.
  We clearly need to focus on our defences. During the past 10 years, we have run down aspects of our armed forces for a variety of reasons. In the wake of the cold war, in our belief in a peace dividend and our feeling that the world might be a safer place, we risked taking our eyes of the ball regarding our defences. We now have clear evidence to show that we must think again. I am glad to hear that the Government have decided to review force structures in this country and to consider whether we have the right capabilities to protect our people. One or two hon. Members mentioned the need to focus on civil defence. I have spoken to people in our security forces during the past couple of weeks and I know that many of them have serious concerns about the nation's ability to withstand a major attack. We need to be certain that we have the best possible civil defence structures.
  What happened on 11 September brought to life a challenge. I suspect that it has been building for years. The terrifying thing—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  5.31 pm
  Donald Anderson: We have reached the stage of the debate where everything that can be said has been said, but not everyone has said it. I shall now add my piece.
  788
  There is general consensus on the view that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has given very distinguished national leadership in this crisis. In his statement, he sought to clarify some of our objectives. Yes, they include the destruction of bin Laden and his network, and possibly also of the Taliban, as it is very difficult to disentangle bin Laden from them. It is worrying, however, to hear some people in or close to the United States Administration use phrases such as "attacking every snake in the swamp". One can imagine the roll call of countries that they have in mind.
  We must make it absolutely clear that we have very limited military objectives. If we want to put countries such as Iraq into the frame, we must remember that there are more effective weapons such as the smarter sanctions and the sort of draft Security Council resolution that was being discussed in early July, but which the Russian Federation blocked for its own commercial reasons. Such measures are far more effective than military action. Seeking to deal with "other snakes in the swamp" could not only destroy the coalition that has been painstakingly built up, but lead to a wider and horrific war.
  I want briefly to examine some of the motives of the terrorists, some of the effects of their actions and the lessons that we may seek to learn. On motives, it has been properly said that there is no way in which we can do deals with bin Laden or find a consensus. Usually, hijackers ask to be taken to a particular country or request the release of some of their co-religionists. The agenda of bin Laden and his associates is so much wider than that; even if, by some miracle, the Palestinian conflict were resolved tomorrow, it would not be satisfied. They want to go much further in acting against western civilisation and all the moderate Arab states that work with the west in general. There is no way in which we can seek to compromise with such people.
  Some people, such as Huntington, talk of the great clash of civilisations that is to come. I reject that view. Far more productive is the sort of slogan that President Khatami used when he spoke of a dialogue of civilisations. I hope that, among our religious leaders and more widely, there will be such a dialogue of civilisations and that it can be productive.
  I welcome what the Government have said about new laws on incitement, which will help to reassure a number of Britain's Muslim communities. Those communities will be feeling beleaguered. I also welcome what has been said by many of their leaders in expressing outrage about the atrocities in the United States. I hope that they will go further. I hope that they and others who have the respect of Muslims overseas will say that suicide bombing is a perversion of the Koran and that there is no way in which those who use themselves to destroy the lives of innocent people can hope to obtain an accelerated passage to paradise for themselves and their families. That is one of the great problems. How do we convey the message to people in, no doubt, deprived communities abroad that it is not, in fact, a grand thing to die in such a way? It is a problem for us, but it is a particular problem for religious leaders in those communities.
  The terrorist seeks—obviously—to instil terror. He hopes to ensure that people lose confidence in their own institutions. There are lessons for us to learn in what the terrorists are doing. Have they succeeded? Certainly, in some ways, they have instilled terror, and they have had the most awful effects. Certainly, there have been effects

  789
  on our economies. We have seen what has happened to the airlines; we have seen a loss of jobs around the world, partly attributable to the events of 11 September. But our economies—the western economies—are much stronger than that, and of course we shall recover. We must ensure that we do not overreact to those awful events, and we must seek to ensure that the civil liberties we enjoy in the west are maintained.
  Let us consider some of the lessons that we can learn, both at home and abroad. Some of the effects may be positive. In the past, the coalition against terrorism has been ineffective; now, the world appears to have woken up to the dangers posed by terrorism. It has been shown that we are all vulnerable. Indeed, the United States may experience a sea change in its own policies, away from the unilateralism that characterised the first months of the Bush Administration and the negative policies of the biological weapons convention, Kyoto and so on. There may well now be a recognition that engagement is very much in the Americans' own national interest.
  What, then, are the lessons for us? First, we need radical improvement in the way in which we tackle the problems of terrorism. There must be no surrender to the terrorists. Abroad, we seek the widest possible co-operation in terms of sharing intelligence, and in terms of the police and judicial authorities, dealing with money laundering and so forth. That is absolutely vital. We must seize the opportunity that has come to us with the aftershocks of the events of 11 September.
  We also need to defeat the enemy at the political level. Tribute has been paid to the work of not only the British Council but the BBC World Service. The World Service has expanded its services in Pashto, Persian and Urdu, and is enhancing its medium-wave and short-wave transmissions to Afghanistan and the surrounding region. It can play a crucial role in countries such as Afghanistan, where, with no television or credible national newspapers, radio is the main form of communication. The World Service has responded speedily, and I hope that the Government will pick up the bill that will no doubt follow.
  At home, issues such as that of identity cards have been raised. What disturbs me is that we in Parliament are spectators in that debate. We hear noises off from the debate in Government. Are they for the scheme or not? Do they want it to be voluntary or compulsory? I hope that the decision will be made by Parliament, and after due debate. I am distressed—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.
  5.39 pm
  Mr. Alan Simpson: We should pay tribute to three enormously important contributions that the Prime Minister has made to the way in which the world has dealt with events following the awesome and tragic destruction of life in America on 11 September. He should be given credit for the restraint that has been built into how we now identify both the scale and nature of the threat, and the way in which we are beginning to talk about it. He needs to be congratulated on the sense of solidarity to which he has contributed in pulling together in the international coalition that the world has formed.
  790
  He needs also to be congratulated on ensuring the first stages of legitimacy of international action in the two resolutions that the UN Security Council has passed. Those are the bedrocks or founding stones upon which we should base our judgment as to how and where we proceed from here.
  I am one of those who has urged a large degree of caution. I have raised some serious reservations about the nature of military intervention. It is important to address the challenges that have been set out. I am not opposed to intervention. What happened in New York was an appalling act of terrorism, not an act of war. The difference between the two is extremely important.
  In an act of war, there is an opposition, which is usually another country. The battles involve ownership of land or the right to rule. At the end of the day a peace process has to be agreed, as a surrender or a brokered peace. There are identifiable parties between whom that peace has to be brokered. What happened in New York had nothing to do with that process.
  That is the basis on which it is said that it is impossible to negotiate with bin Laden. His actions are not based on the occupation of particular land but are in pursuit of a distorted version of an ideology. That poses a challenge to the way we meet that threat. It cannot sit comfortably behind a bland endorsement that there is a conventional military solution.
  Those who have examined specifically the landscape of Afghanistan would warn us that there is precious little to be gained by bombing a country that already sits on the edge of the stone age to somewhere before or beyond it. The strategy of intervention that I advocate is one that is driven by our notion of justice and by international law and legitimacy. On that basis, we must have the courage to return to the Security Council to ensure that we have even more specific mandates for the defined actions that follow. It is important that we have that endorsement of legitimacy and the definition of constraints that go hand in hand with it.
  I want to see a specific mandate for action that will authorise the international community's sanction of special forces being involved in the pursuit of bin Laden. I want to see that pursuit defined at least by an opening intention, which is that we are seeking to get hold of bin Laden to subject him to trial under international criminal rules in an international criminal court.
  I want us to affirm the importance internationally of proceeding on the basis of evidence. We should proceed through the UN because I know there must be a mandate for Afghanistan of the sort that related to Cambodia. If we are to honour any of our international obligations to Afghanistan and the poverty that exists there, such a mandate will be essential.
  I have forewarned in various articles about the lack of precision in what we are saying that we are doing. There must be a balance. The pursuit of bin Laden will have to be painstaking and relentless. He will not offer himself up easily and it will not be entirely clear what part of anyone's terrain he will be occupying. That is my reservation when it comes to bombardment and what it might do. If Afghanistan needs to be bombarded with anything, it should be bread, grain and medicines. It is imperative that they are delivered in the next several weeks.

  791
  Bin Laden must be pursued with relentless determination so that he can be brought before the international courts of justice. If that is to be done, we will probably have to remove him forcibly. Constraints are important to us because they will send out a different message to current allies in the coalition. I am worried that without a definition we may send out the most unfortunate green-light messages to some of our partners, which would be interpreted as approval to act in whatever way they like.
  None of us can doubt that there are people in Russia who would consider the flattening of Chechnya to be a proportionate response, in their terms. In China, the obliteration of Falun Gong practitioners might be seen as a proportionate response. In Israel, I see no charge by Sharon to find new common ground with the PLO. Instead, the charge is to obliterate every symbol that may represent Palestinian independence, in order to say that that is part of the destruction of the al-Qaeda network. Even in Ireland, a hardening of the divides would allow some to say that it is proportionate to define eight-year-old schoolgirls armed only with a fully laden lunch box as the legitimate targets of pipe bombs.
  We must define not proportionate response but appropriate response in more specific terms, if the international coalition is to be held together on the basis of just and humanitarian causes and international equity.
  Pursuing bin Laden to trial obliges us to consider how and where we set out the evidence. The Leader of the Opposition said this morning that bin Laden was guilty as charged, but none of us has seen any charges, and none of us has seen the evidence. I do not want to see it. It is not appropriate to present it in the House or to the public, but it ought to be presented to the UN Security Council or to an international panel of judges, as demanded by Pakistan and, according to the news today, as required by Saudi Arabia as the basis for action not just to pursue America's enemies but to pursue a broader attack on terrorism.
  In doing that domestically, we can do several things. We ought to reduce risk, rather than making citizens feel insecure. As a Government, we should reconsider the decision to approve a MOX reprocessing plant. Hitting one nuclear power station would result in the unleashing of 200 Chernobyls. That would be the scale of the disaster if an airliner was flown into a nuclear power station. We should not get distracted by the debate about ID cards. The equivalent of the cost of such cards would provide 4,000 or more officers on the beat or involved in intelligence-based policing—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  5.47 pm
  Ms Oona King: Since the appalling atrocities on 11 September, we have heard that our civilisation is under threat. We have even heard that the attack represents a clash of civilisations. In the short time available to me, I begin by rejecting that claim outright.
  To speak of a clash of civilisations is to imply that one fanatic and his network, supported by another bunch of fanatics—the Taliban—represent a civilisation. Given their track record, the opposite is true. They represent the antithesis of civilisation. They represent destruction and
  792
  degradation in all spheres—political, social and economic. It is true, however, that owing to the extreme nature of their barbarity, those fanatics might in the long run quicken the international community's determination to create and to police a world order based on the rule of law.
  We achieved the rule of law and democracy in Britain only towards the end of the second millennium. The beginning of the third millennium marks the infancy of global democracy. The United Nations is only 52 years old—imagine when the UN is 300 years old, in 2249. Whether we reach that year will depend on the future success of the UN. British people looking back on us in that age will view us as being at the mediaeval stage of global governance and development. Whatever those British people survey in 2249, some small part—or possibly a large part—will have been shaped by our response to the events of 11 September 2001.
  What will that response be'? It must be a rules-based approach to international relations. That means strengthening our global institutions, nurturing global institutions that are rules-based and democratic, and reforming those that are not.
  Incidentally, the World Trade Organisation is one of the most democratic and rules-based global institutions. Given the link that has been made by the symbolic attack on the World Trade Centre and the debate around globalisation, we would do well to remember that we must ensure that the economic rights of people in developing countries are tied into the response we put together.
  I have been delighted to hear what our Prime Minister has had to say on that matter. Indeed, only a few days ago at the Labour party conference he spoke of the need to find security and justice within institutions and a global response that looks to and speaks to people in the developing world. He even mentioned conflicts that I have heard no one else mention recently, such as those in the Congo and Rwanda. He did so because until we start to look into some of the root causes of instability and insecurity around the world, we will not be able to deal with the threat of terrorism, which is cowardly and uses those problems as an excuse for its own appalling deeds.
  If we are to create a rules-based response and to improve rules-based institutions, we must first look to the United Nations. I welcomed the Foreign Secretary's remarks when he said that a UN mandate for governing Afghanistan was an option that would be considered. We certainly need a UN peacekeeping force with a mandate to establish a transitional administration that is able to facilitate democratic elections at some point—the same type of force as that used in Cambodia and East Timor.
  Again, if we are to strengthen a rules-based approach, Britain needs more influence over the global institutions that shape our world. I was pleased to hear this morning that the Security Council has invited Britain to chair a committee that will study the use of sanctions against members who do not uphold resolution 1373, which legally binds UN member states to
  "seek out, prosecute or extradite terrorists on their soil."
  If we are talking about strengthening those international institutions, we cannot help but recognise that sub-international institutions—that is, regional institutions—have also grown in importance, which leads us inexorably towards the European Union. I certainly hope that there too, Britain will continue to increase and exercise its influence. Clearly, we can have more influence over those institutions

  793
  only through participation not isolation. I hope that is one thing that the American Government will also consider in their response, which until this point has been extremely measured.
  Everyone has said that everything has changed since 11 September. For me, it certainly has. Before 11 September, no one could have convinced me that I would ever have a shred of respect for President Bush, but today I do respect the response of the American Administration.
  We also need to consider some of the reasons why so many people dislike and even distrust America—I speak as an American citizen who holds an American passport. One obvious reason that it is important to single out America is because it is the most powerful country on the planet. Perceived hypocrisy massively compounds the usual antagonisms that face a world superpower. Some people despise America because it is a superpower. Some people despise it because of its values—free speech, liberty and democracy; and some people despise it because they feel that much of its foreign policy since the second world war has made a mockery of those values—a mockery of free speech, liberty and democracy. There are many examples: Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, the Congo in 1960, Cuba in 1961, Chile in 1973 and Nicaragua between 1981 and 1986. There is no need to labour the sense of injustice that many people have felt about the perceived use of double standards in American foreign policy. As many speakers have said, nowhere is that more obvious than in Israel and Palestine.
  My grandfather was in the British Army, and one Member spoke of how his Sikh grandfather wore a turban and beard and went to battle for king and country during the second world war—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  5.55 pm
  Mr. Andrew Turner: I begin by relating something of which I am a bit ashamed. On the afternoon of Tuesday 11 September, I saw on the internet what had happened in New York and my thought immediately was "Israel". That was a small victory for Osama bin Laden. He had succeeded in part of what he had set out to do by bringing to my attention a situation that he believed was unjust. We must not delude ourselves that there is no reason behind the action that he has taken. That is not to say that we should yield or should negotiate even if it is clear that he has presented us with something to negotiate about. I am sure that something more than the problems in Israel lie behind his activities, and the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) mentioned an example.
  Over the next couple of days, like many hon. Members I developed an increased regard for President Bush. He had the uniquely difficult task of representing the view of a nation that had been attacked at home when it had never been attacked at home before. He had to bring together the feelings and demands for retribution, revenge and retaliation and turn them into something sensible, measured and concrete, and that, with the support of the international community, he could deliver. He has done just that. He has turned the immediate demand for revenge
  794
  into a much more measured demand for justice and prevention. He has done so—I am sure in part—because he has surrounded himself with wise counsellors and has taken note of the views of the international community represented not least by the Prime Minister.
  We need to address a couple of issues—I am sure that the Prime Minister and others may already have done so—in our reaction, but they have not, as far as I know, been mentioned in the debate. When I did a phone-in on Isle of Wight Radio recently, the most difficult questions I was asked were: "Why, given that you support the action whatever it is, are you not talking about introducing freedom and democracy to the Arab world? You say that the action is in defence of democracy, freedom and civilisation, so why are you not talking of introducing those virtues to the whole of the middle east, which is pretty short on freedom and democracy?"
  I hope that I gave the right answer. I said that we have to respect other civilisations as well as our own. Liberal democracy is the best way to rule any country, but it is not within our power to impose liberal democracy out of the barrel of a gun on a nation or on a culture that believes in a different system of government. Whether it is a theocracy, autocracy or whatever kind of government, we must have respect, in delivering internationally agreed objectives, for the people of civilisations different from our own.
  When we talk of defending "civilisation", I believe that we use that word in its widest possible sense. We are talking not just about the defence of western civilisation as represented by capitalism and liberal democracy, but about the civilisations of the Arab world and of the east, and we have perhaps done too much, insensitively, to undermine them in the past.
  I believe that over the last century, indeed the last millennium, the United Kingdom, as a western european country, has brought untold benefits to other parts of the world. However, other parts of the world think differently now and we do not have the power that we used to have to impose our values on others. Therefore, I address, with just a little concern, the Prime Minister's aspirations expressed at his party conference on Tuesday. Of course, to reshape the world is a wonderful aspiration, but I wonder whether we have the right to do so.
  I believe that we have the right to defend our values and to defend our civilisation when it is under attack. We also have the responsibility to defend other civilisations when they are under attack. Arab countries take a different view from us about the role of women in society and about the role of democracy. I believe that our responsibility, indeed our right, is limited to defending ourselves when under attack. We do not have the right to intervene in countries that rule themselves effectively, even though we may disagree to a considerable extent. Of course, it is a grey distinction. It is the distinction between the appalling atrocities of the Taliban, not least towards women, and the different approach to the role of women adopted by western civilisations.
  Let us be unlimited in our ambitions but limited in our objectives to that which is achievable and legitimate. That far, we will support the Prime Minister and the United States in defending our interests and protecting our civilisation.
  6.3 pm
  Mr. Eric Joyce: In peacetime, during the latter part of the last century, people in this country gave less thought to national and international security than to the contents of their weekly shopping. In wartime, during the first half of the last century, the reverse tended to be the case. That pattern always seemed not only understandable but as it should be, as freedom from fear and insecurity were two of the immediate aims of the two great wars of that century.
  While no one in their right mind ever desired either of those great wars, both brought unquestionable benefits which extended well beyond the defeat of fascism. Those benefits, which included universal suffrage and the national health service, came as post-war expressions of the collective endeavour and sense of higher national and international purpose engendered by those terrible wars. In wartime 20th century Britain, there was most certainly such a place as society.
  Those who came through one of those wars—we are still blessed in our constituencies with many who came through both—are perhaps the only people who truly know what national wartime spirit really felt like. Others can empathise, through endeavour or conflict in their own lives or through studying war and society in the 20th century. I believe that in the years following 11 September 2001, our nation, alongside our allies, needs to rediscover important aspects of what has in the past been called wartime spirit.
  Certainly, times have changed, and that spirit may manifest itself in new ways. Society is far richer and more diverse, and old-fashioned jingoism is most certainly not the order of the day, but it is fair to say that today many people recognise the need for a renewed collective spirit. That will be reflected in their attitudes to a host of issues, from military deployment to national investment in public services and international partnerships within and outwith the European Union. In that respect, ordinary citizens need to understand something that those who have written the doctrine of the British armed services have known for some years: in the 21st century, it no longer makes sense to speak of war and peace as though there is a clear delineation between them.
  Through our televisions, many of us will have begun to learn the early language that goes with casting aside those old certainties. Each day we hear the term "asymmetrical warfare"—we have heard it several times today—and we know that, if nothing else, it means that the conflict that we face is entirely unlike the symmetrical conflict of the similarly configured armies, navies and air forces that faced each other during most 20th century wars.
  We have long lived with the reality of low-intensity conflict, such as that in Northern Ireland, as opposed to the high-intensity conflict of what used to be called total war. The reality is that terms such as low-intensity and high-intensity warfare and asymmetrical and symmetrical warfare now have the main public purpose of indicating that a spectrum of violence and military action exists and that during the 21st century our armed forces, and more generally we as a society, must be prepared to act and live along that entire spectrum. In turn, therefore, the very language of peacetime and wartime will need to change. For example, considering whether or not we as a nation are at war will become more a matter of language and perception than one of Governments making a categorical decision about whether or not we are at war.
  796
  A most important thing is that the people of this country adopt permanently a number of assumptions and attitudes that have been associated until now with periods of armed conflict, one of which is that the fundamental right to life will, from time to time, require all of us to accept temporary constraints, or perhaps more permanent ones, on certain personal freedoms and higher standards of security than those that we may have been used to recently. Such measures will, of course, be balanced against the need to maintain an open, democratic society, but other assumptions will include the need to make personal sacrifices from time to time, the need to show resolve when others, including those in the armed services, make such sacrifices, and the need to grasp the importance of information flows towards and away from our enemies.
  Perhaps above all, the British people must continuously look beyond the day-to-day events of the coming months and years to see the greater democratic and humanitarian significance of our efforts across the world. Of course, the imperative now lies with reducing the risk of terrorist attack wherever possible. That will naturally focus our attention on particular geographical areas in the short term, but it is impossible to understate the potential effect of the emerging new world consensus on regions that need our help more than ever before.
  We know that humanitarian aid of a high order will need to accompany any military action in Afghanistan, for example, and I hope that wherever a specific threat of worldwide-reach terrorism rears its head, a combination of incisive military action and comprehensive humanitarian relief will yield the results that we all seek. However, we will need to keep our eye on those areas where conflict is endemic, yet where the immediate risk to us is perhaps lower, and I am thinking of Africa in particular.
  I was privileged to spend a short while in the Democratic Republic of the Congo recently as part of the all-party group on the African Great Lakes region, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King). My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has noted elsewhere that the developed nations could have responded far better to the Rwandan genocide of 1993 and 1994. Although the current situation in the Congo is in some ways quite different, we should be in no doubt about the misery caused there by years of civil, and rather less than civil, war. We have a responsibility to act there, too, in whatever way we can, and the people of the region must not become invisible casualties of our own struggle against terrorism for our own security.
  As has already been mentioned, it is also time for us to consider the relationship between sound governance and democracy. It seems to me that our aim must always be to drive democracy forward in those parts of the world where it is not currently practised. At the same time, however, it is impossible for democracy to operate in a collapsed state. In such situations it is essential for us to encourage administrations to adopt high standards of governance, to invest in infrastructure and to encourage civil society and human rights without demanding impossibly short time horizons for our standards of democracy before, for example, even the most rudimentary internal communications are in place. In short, we must recognise that there are leaders in non-democratic societies who strive for better for their people while at the same time driving home to them in unambiguous terms that democratic structures must be the eventual aim everywhere.

  797
  September 11 was a cataclysm and a tragedy from which, I hope, good will eventually come—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  6.11 pm
  Linda Gilroy: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  "Britain's national security is based on the mutual support that comes from membership of NATO. That will not change … there are new threats to our people from crime and terrorism. Instability around the world can affect us directly and we have global responsibility to play … "
  The person who drafted those words at the beginning of the defence section of our manifesto can scarcely have known how meaningful they would become within months of the June 2001 election.
  Just days after the grim events of Tuesday 11 September, Plymouth was set to be the venue for the ceremony marking the change of command for the NATO Standing Naval Force Mediterranean. The passing of the command from the Italian flag officer to the United Kingdom was scheduled to take place at the same time as our previous debate. As things turned out, the service personnel involved had more pressing matters than the planned ceremony and the social celebration attached to it. In the wake of the attack on New York it would have been quite unthinkable.
  Plymouth's links with America go wider than its role as a key defence city through the 50-year-old alliance of NATO. The vast majority of the 46 places in the world named after Plymouth, England, are in the United States. Many American firms have operations in Plymouth. Some of them recently joined other firms through the chamber of commerce to make something more of our historic Mayflower steps, which for far too long were a disappointing commemoration of the departure of the pilgrims on the Mayflower in 1620 to establish a new home in what has become Plymouth, Massachusetts, ironically to escape religious intolerance in this country.
  Searching for some tangible means of expressing their shared grief, many Plymothians and tourists have made their way to the steps with flowers and candles. Samantha Ravell, a 12-year-old student at Lipson college, summed it up rather well when lighting her candle. She is quoted by the local evening paper as saying:
  "It just seemed the right thing to do."
  A simple bunch of yellow carnations was accompanied by the message:
  "For all the victims of New York city and Washington DC and throughout the USA, and all others that have died at the hands of terrorists.
  This has to stop.
  Luv
  Brendan & other children of the 21st century."
  To be young should be to be optimistic. The appalling events of 11 September undoubtedly represent a sea change. Out of adversity it is sometimes possible to derive not only strength, but an advance in civilisation. Because words are capable of so many sensitive meanings at times of heightened tension, I should explain that I mean civilisation in the most generic sense—as the opposite of barbarism in all its many forms and not just as the
  798
  prevailing culture of western democracies. Never has it been more difficult—and yet easier—for us to move in a more civil direction and for Governments to establish frameworks which encourage the best rather than the worst in people.
  I urge my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to follow through in respect of the role of drugs in financing international terrorism. Earlier this year he undertook to make Britain the hardest country in the western world for drug dealers to operate in. No doubt he did not imagine that we would need to address the issue in quite such a context.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will assure us that a key goal in removing the tools of terrorism will be to destroy the fields of death where the drugs cycle starts. If they are a key part of funding a network that can commit such heinous acts as those of 11 September, that is justification enough for their destruction, but drugs do far more than that, as hundreds of my constituents know to their cost having witnessed the lives of children and people close to them ruined by drugs. There are more than 1,000 addicts in Plymouth alone, but they are not the only victims: it is estimated that in Plymouth goods worth £1 million are stolen each week to feed drug habits. Those who are the victims of the vicious cycle that starts in the poppy fields of Afghanistan extend far beyond those who died on 11 September.
  The Royal Navy has been building up experience working alongside international agencies: earlier this year, drugs worth £70 million were seized off South America. I hope that as part of our long-term determination to tackle the roots of terrorism, that experience will be built on and deployed with even greater effect. Our armed services are among the finest. As we speak, 14,000 are on exercise in Oman, together with a similar number of Omani troops. We hope that our service personnel will return home by Christmas.
  I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) who asked the Prime Minister not to allow under-18s to be deployed. I believe that that should be their choice. It is a choice that 17-year-old Heather Woolger, a west country Wren serving on HMS Cornwall, a type 22 frigate, wants to be able to make for herself. Her mother is proud of what she has achieved, but is understandably concerned: if it were left to her mother, Heather would, no doubt, be home by now. However, like her family, I feel that at 17 she is capable of making her own choices in such matters.
  At the beginning of the 21st century, we have the tools to find creative solutions to the world's great challenges—not only the terrible events of last month, but the many other problems that scar the planet. We have a tremendous responsibility to the children of the 21st century to use those tools well.
  6.17 pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I begin by commending the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), who movingly summed up the mood of the House and of the public as we face the terrorist threat. He made it clear that we should not allow the terrorists to mould our opinions or to dictate the agenda.
  It is pointing out the obvious to say that the issues raised in response to the Prime Minister's statement this morning and during today's debate are by no means

  799
  confined to foreign affairs and defence matters; they take in home affairs and international development as well. I intend no criticism of the Government when I say that Ministers have done a great deal of thinking aloud about the need to improve our national security and the effectiveness of the campaign to combat terrorism—indeed, we applaud the Home Secretary and his colleagues for doing so—but they have opened up many more questions than they are able to resolve.
  I echo the words of the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Foreign Secretary: such questions should be fully debated by Parliament. We, like many other Members of Parliament, are asking when Parliament will see the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for International Development at the Dispatch Box. Part of the purpose of recalling Parliament is to give the Government the opportunity to face proper scrutiny of their proposals and to respond to the questions raised. Next Thursday or Friday appear to us to be appropriate dates for such a debate.
  The key message that emerges from today's debate is that the whole of the civilised world desires a response to the crisis that is far more comprehensive and effective than the sort of simplistic military reaction that some feared would be the response. The Government clearly understand the need to address a wide range of internal security issues, especially those that relate to the means of arrest, prosecution and extradition of suspected terrorists, their helpers and their financiers—a point raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham). Today, I can inform the House that we have tabled amendments to the Export Control Bill precisely to address the question of people from the United Kingdom providing military assistance to terrorists overseas.
  I also commend the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier). His points deserve to be addressed directly by the Home Secretary. My hon. and learned Friend rightly demonstrated to terrorists why Parliament matters.
  Many hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Woking (Mr. Malins) and for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman), raised the whole question of race relations and spoke of the need to amend the law of incitement to racial hatred. Almost every speaker in the debate would have liked to hear from a Minister with direct responsibility for policy on those matters.
  On the definition of terrorism, do the Government agree with the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) that there is to be a distinction between international terrorism and domestic terrorism? I have to agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and the Ulster Unionists who expressed considerable unease on that point. Are the Government proposing an international definition of terrorism for use by the European Union and other international bodies?
  International development was widely debated. Clearly, there is widespread concern in the House about the need to supply aid to Afghanistan and the other countries in the region affected. My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) asked about the standards of refugee camps and what action the Government may be taking. We welcome the Government's commitments of £25 million directly for Afghanistan and £11 million for the refugee camps in Pakistan, but we need to hear from
  800
  the Secretary of State for International Development how the aid will get through and how we will prevent it from getting into the wrong hands.
  Let there be no illusion that our words in Parliament, legal reforms, resolute action at home and a generous international aid programme abroad on their own can resolve the immediate threat that is posed by Osama bin Laden and his allies who comprise the network of international terrorism. That is why we commend the resolute action that the Government have taken in preparation for the military action that we fear may be necessary.
  The House as a whole appears at ease with the way in which the United States has led the international response so far. There has been less fear of a so-called blank cheque for United States military action—a false image that did nothing but raise fears of an intemperate response, which have clearly proved to be false. The foundation of this confidence is the extraordinary international coalition that the United States, the United Kingdom and NATO have assembled in support of a truly comprehensive response. On behalf of the Opposition, I should like to express my appreciation for the work of the NATO Secretary-General, Lord Robertson.
  On Tuesday, NATO formally invoked article 5 of the Washington treaty. Lord Robertson announced that since it had been determined that the attacks had been directed from abroad, they were regarded as an action covered by article 5. I now understand that the United States has formally called on NATO to mobilise its resources for possible military action. Today, NATO has outlined eight measures to support the US military effort, including unrestricted access to European airspace, ports and airports.
  No one can doubt that the Atlantic alliance has the central and crucial role in the current international coalition against terrorism. In recent years NATO has had its many doubters and many have, sadly, questioned its role and value. The Prime Minister himself has even referred to those who would wish to destroy NATO. I trust that its crucial role in the current crisis will dispel for ever such doubts about the alliance's future. We must, however, always be ready to adapt its role to meet new challenges.
  The same applies to our armed forces, so I invite the Secretary of State for Defence to enlarge on his announcement in Brighton on Tuesday. What precisely did he mean by "rebalance"? He said:
  "As a result of the attacks on the United States, we will be looking again at how we organise our defence.
  This will not be a new Strategic Defence Review, but an opportunity, if necessary, to rebalance our existing efforts."
  I welcome the Government's readiness and flexibility of mind to revisit SDR so soon after its implementation. We have always said that SDR would not be the end of the process. However, I am concerned about the word "rebalance" because it implies that what may be added to one capability may be cut from another in order to balance the books. I can imagine the Treasury urging the word "rebalance" into the text of the Secretary of State's speeches and that he is not altogether happy with it.
  We have consistently warned of how defence commitments must be matched by defence capabilities. The Prime Minister's ambitions to police more of the

  801
  world make that warning all the more relevant, so I commend the Secretary of State's comments on "The World at One" on Tuesday:
  "I think we need to look very carefully at the level of financial commitment that we require".
  I agree. He will have our support in advancing his case with the Treasury.
  I ask the Secretary of State to clarify whether there is to be some special forces review, as reported in the press. I know that he is aware of how difficult it would be to expand the Special Air Service or the Special Boat Squadron without losing what makes them so special. Will there be a consultation paper? Is there a time scale for the review? Will there be cross-departmental consultation, as with SDR? Many people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), have expressed concern about the resourcing of the security services. Will the review be based on a formal reassessment of asymmetric threats, which is clearly already under way informally, reflecting the interrelationship between terrorism and the illegal trade in drugs, international racketeering and financial fraud?
  Earlier this week, I had the privilege of visiting our forces on exercise in Oman. Exercise Saif Sareea 2 involves the deployment of huge quantities of equipment, including tanks, aircraft and ships, along with 23,000 service personnel in hostile desert conditions over an area that stretches for hundreds of miles. It is a fantastic achievement for those involved, from the chiefs of staff to every one of those carrying out their duties in theatre. The exercise tests to the limit our ability to project real military strength to the most distant corners of the world. Everyone I met showed their sheer professionalism, guts and good humour, despite considerable physical hardship. I hope that the House will join me in commending all those involved.
  There will be many lessons to learn from Saif Sareea 2. Many of the lessons were touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), but now is not the occasion to embark on that debate wholesale. However, there is one important message to which the Secretary of State should immediately and publicly respond, and I have given him notice of the concern. Forces personnel on Saif Sareea 2 were promised a "welfare package" that included the opportunity of regular telephone and internet contact with their families at home. In the aftermath of 11 September, that regular contact is hugely important for service men and women who wish to reassure their folks back home. In the case of certain deployments, it has proved impossible to fulfil that promise.
  Will the Secretary of State assure the House that he will give his attention to that small but acute problem? There can be little worse than waiting for an expected call that never comes. We owe it to our service men and women and their families to provide every means of reassurance that we can at this worrying time.
  It is the first duty of any Government to provide for the safety and security of their citizens. On 11 September, our citizens were subject to a terrible and evil attack. They were murdered by an enemy who remains free, able and motivated to strike again. The news this afternoon is that he may already have done so.
  802
  The Government would be failing in their duty if they did not use every means at their disposal to deal with that threat. The House would be failing in its duty if it did not support the Government at this time. That is why we support the Government's determination to stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States and her other allies as the whole civilised world comes to terms with what has happened.
  The Foreign Secretary said that on 11 September the world changed, and of course he is right in terms of our perception of our own security and of our need to change our attitude towards it. In substance, however, the world did not change; it merely revealed itself. As the horrible freshness of the 11 September tragedy begins to fade in our minds, we must never again drop our guard.
  I commend the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), who apologises for being unable to be in his place. He said that it will be the job of Her Majesty's Opposition to urge the Government to press on with the plans and strategy that they are currently formulating to protect the world from the terrorist threat. I assure my hon. Friend that that is what we shall do.
  Our armed forces are prepared and ready to do whatever they are called upon to do. That is their job and they are devoted to it. Nevertheless, our thoughts and prayers will be with them and their families every hour of every day until their task is done.
  6.33 pm
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): First, I apologise to the House for my absence from the Chamber during the middle of the debate. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will understand why, in these very particular circumstances, I have not been present in the Chamber for as long as I would normally have been, and for as long as I should have liked.
  The question of the tragic crash in the Black sea has been raised. A Russian TU154 travelling from Tel Aviv to Russia crashed into the Black sea. We understand that 66 passengers and 10 to 12 crew were on board; sadly, all are believed to have died. It is too soon to say what was the cause of that unfortunate crash. A number of theories are doing the rounds, but it is better for the moment that we do not rush to any early conclusions. It is important. though, that the House should express its concern for the victims and their families, and the Government will certainly be writing to both the Russian and Israeli Governments to express our condolences.
  The scale of the terror that faced the world on 11 September went beyond anything that we had seen before. The exact numbers of those killed are still not known and may not be known for many days, or even weeks, more, but it is clear that some 6,000 people lost their lives in those appalling attacks.
  We have seen suicide attacks before, but never causing death on such a scale. As the Prime Minister said, it was a turning point in our history. Our world now looks a very different place. We now face new challenges—from the terrorists responsible for the attacks on the United States and from others using similar tactics.
  Two tasks lie ahead: we must bring those responsible for the events of 11 September to account, along with all those who support, harbour and protect them; and we must deal with the wider threat of the evil of international terrorism.

  803
  Our message to Osama bin Laden has been absolutely clear. We know that he is guilty. Information that the Prime Minister has placed in the Library of the House makes that quite clear. We will bring him to account. Our message to the Taliban has also been clear. The world is watching them. Their chance to surrender the terrorists and end their support for terrorism is fast running out. In answer to the question from the shadow Foreign Secretary, that is our aim: to remove the support for terrorism in Afghanistan, and to show that such support will not be tolerated elsewhere.
  As a number of right hon. and hon. Members have said, the United States has shown great dignity and restraint since 11 September. We commend its refusal to lash out in instant revenge. Whatever action is taken, in self-defence and within the UN charter, must be proportionate and carefully targeted—compatible with legitimate self-defence in accordance with international law. It will therefore be rules-based, as was requested and required by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King). We recognise that it must target the guilty, and wherever possible, avoid harming the innocent. We recognise that it may take time, and may risk lives, but we recognise, too, that the time for forceful military action against Osama bin Laden, his associates, and—if they do not act—those who support them, is undoubtedly coming.
  A shadow of evil and death fell across New York, Washington and Pennsylvania on 11 September. It fell across the United States. It fell across the whole free world—but from that shadow some good must emerge. We face a choice. We could cower in the face of this threat, or we can destroy it. With our allies, we are determined to eliminate terrorism as a force in international affairs.
  The United Kingdom will play a full and active role in working to achieve those objectives. To do otherwise would be to ignore our responsibilities as a close ally of the United States and as a member of the United Nations, the G8, NATO and the European Union.
  My answer to the points raised by a number of right hon. and hon. Members is that it is because we recognise the range of responsibilities that we are working to build a humanitarian coalition to deal with the growing crisis faced by Afghan refugees, and to offer those innocent and helpless people—victims themselves, with whom we have no quarrel—the assistance that they need. The United Kingdom was the first country to pledge money for refugees. The sum now stands at some £36 million, in addition to the £35 million that we have given to Afghan refugees since 1997.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the humanitarian aid be provided before the winter snows come, and the passes become impassable?
  Mr. Hoon: It is already being provided. The Department for International Development's first shipment of 400 tents arrived in Iran yesterday. A further flight with more supplies is due to depart for Iran at the end of this week. We do recognise the effects of the onset of winter, and the difficult conditions in Afghanistan, but much determined effort is being made throughout the world to ensure that aid reaches the country quickly. There is, of course, a great deal more that we need to do,
  804
  and I assure my hon. Friend that we are thinking urgently about what further help we and the rest of the world can give. I know that many right hon. and hon. Members were concerned about that, especially my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), and I hope that I have been able to satisfy them that we are making determined efforts.
  In addition to the building of a humanitarian coalition, a range of further measures are being taken by the international community. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been in regular contact with President Bush. I have been in close contact with Donald Rumsfeld, the United States Defence Secretary. This close contact has been matched at all levels within the Ministry of Defence, and right across Government. We have consulted carefully on the appropriate response to the attacks on 11 September, and have made it clear to our United States ally that we will offer it every assistance in whatever action it takes.
  As the Prime Minister announced this morning, we have received an initial request from the United States for a range of military capabilities. We have already responded positively to that, and we shall consider further requests as and when they are received.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: The Secretary of State has said that Britain is prepared to respond positively. Will he say what impact that will have on the heavy commitments in which our armed forces are already engaged in various parts of the world, not least in the Balkans?
  Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, which he has raised with me before. Clearly it is my responsibility, on behalf of the Government, to ensure that our armed forces are not asked to do more than they can reasonably sustain, and we shall have careful regard to that consideration in the weeks and months ahead.
  Ms Oona King: On the point of funding the military, and in the wake of the attacks of 11 September, does my right hon. Friend share my hope that both the left and right will learn some lessons? Should not the left accept that we need to prioritise military spending so that peacekeeping roles, among others, can be fulfilled and the right accept that we must prioritise humanitarian aid and that it must be paid for?
  Mr. Hoon: The lesson of events in the Balkans and elsewhere—indeed, this is one of the lessons of the modern world—is that we need to recognise that humanitarian crises go hand in hand with military ones and that there must be a co-ordinated response across government. I think that that point was made from the Opposition Benches. It is important for us to join together those responses, as this Government in particular have done.
  Harry Cohen: If military action is taken, when does my right hon. Friend expect to be in a position to announce the rules of engagement and the war aims? If those aims do not include removing the Taliban, on what basis will they be engaged?
  Mr. Hoon: I had thought that my hon. Friend might have noticed that I dealt with that point earlier. The purpose of any military action would be to create a

  805
  condition in Afghanistan whereby it had a Government who did not support international terrorism, took appropriate steps to remove terrorists from within its borders and ensured that no further help was given to terrorism.
  I was dealing with contacts between allies. I want to make it clear that there have been a range of such contacts, not only with the United States, but with other allies. NATO defence Ministers met in Brussels last week to discuss how we can work together in our response to the threat of international terrorism. NATO has taken the unprecedented step of invoking article 5 for the first time in its history, in recognition that the attack on the United States was an attack on all of us. Other allies, therefore, also stand by to assist the United States.
  The discussions in Brussels included a meeting with the new Russian Defence Minister—the first civilian to be made a Defence Minister in that country. The response to the attacks on the United States has been remarkable for the degree of unity shown by nations across the world. The Russian support for the United States has been invaluable. The Prime Minister's visit to Russia today is a sign of that developing closeness, on which I hope to build when I visit Russia for talks with its new Defence Minister next week.
  The United Kingdom's armed forces have continued to serve our country with very great distinction. They have consistently excelled recently in a number of difficult situations in the Balkans, East Timor and Africa. Only last month, I went to see Britain's contribution to Task Force Harvest in Macedonia. Their professionalism, skill and determination to play their part in restoring stability to that country were all that we have come to expect. I have no doubt that, if and when they are called on to play their part in the action against Osama bin Laden and his associates, against the Taliban, and against others who support terrorism, they will do so with the same distinction.
  Many of our service personnel have already deployed to Oman to take part in Exercise Saif Sareea with the Omani armed forces. Planning for the exercise began some four years ago. It has been designed to test and prove the success of key elements of our joint rapid reaction forces. It also demonstrates the closeness of our friendship with Oman and will develop our wide-ranging defence relationship.
  Before this debate, the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) raised with me the issue of the welfare package. I was grateful to him for relating to me the experiences that he gained when visiting the exercise in Oman. We were aware of certain difficulties with the welfare package. Efforts are being made to put that right. I am grateful for the thoughtful way in which he raised the matter and the balanced manner in which he dealt with it today.
  The United Kingdom's contribution to the exercise is immense. It is the largest overseas deployment by British forces since the Gulf conflict. As the House will have heard, some 20,000 service personnel are taking part. We have deployed the Illustrious Carrier Group, 3 Commando Brigade, five squadrons of Challenger 2 tanks, some 50 fast jet aircraft and many other force elements. I must emphasise to the House that they are there to take part in
  806
  the exercise. Obviously, however, in the light of the attacks on the United States and given that we know where they originated, it is a fortunate coincidence that our forces can by their presence contribute to the trap that we are closing around Osama bin Laden. We are prepared and ready to draw on those deployed forces if that is required, but, as a number of Members have said, the war on international terrorism will not be won by military force alone. It must be fought on other fronts too—through diplomacy, new legislation and new economic measures. That point was made by a number of right hon. and hon. Members, including, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith).
  The enemy that we face is sophisticated. It has close links with transnational organised crime, illegal arms trafficking, the movement of illicit drugs, and money laundering. It threatens us in many ways. Our response must be sophisticated too, and organised on a national, regional and international basis. That was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy). I emphasise that we have already made our first moves. We have acted to increase the security of the United Kingdom in the face of these threats.
  As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear, we have no evidence of any specific threat of terrorist action against the United Kingdom. It is, perhaps, one thing to describe a doomsday scenario in a Sunday newspaper; it is quite another to deploy a functioning, effective weapon of mass destruction. Of course, that does not mean that we should not be vigilant—as we all must be.
  Laura Moffatt: Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking those who work in international airports, especially Gatwick and Heathrow? They have performed an enormous task in coming out of their offices and assisting the security operation. Theirs has clearly been a difficult job for too long, but is it not remarkable that they are prepared to continue that mammoth task in the circumstances that airlines now face?
  Mr. Hoon: Absolutely. Their task is difficult not least because, until 11 September, training for those close to airports and airlines was based on the assumption that they would be dealing with a rational threat—that they would be dealing with people who, in effect, wanted to exchange the safety and security of potential hostages for the fulfilling of some demand which, however irrational, could be dealt with in a sensible way. That training, and that approach, will now have to be adjusted to take account of those who no longer have a rational approach, but are essentially determined to bring about their own deaths and the deaths of as many other people as possible. That requires very different training and a very different approach. I commend all those in airports and airlines who have had to adjust to a very different and extraordinarily dangerous reality.
  When I addressed the House two weeks ago, I talked about the valuable work of the Civil Contingencies Secretariat in pulling together contingency plans to deal with any incident that might occur. The plans involve a wide range of Government Departments and agencies, as well as bodies and institutions in the private sector. Many of the plans were drawn up long before 11 September; where necessary, they are being reviewed in the light of what happened.

  807
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already spoken about what we are doing in the diplomatic sphere. As the House is aware, the Prime Minister is playing a leading role in drawing together a global coalition, united in its determination to rid the world of this terrorist threat.
  Lynne Jones: Does my right hon. Friend intend to deal with the points made by several Members about the need to bolster and extend the capability of international organisations such as the United Nations, and to set up an international criminal court? In particular, does he intend to address the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) about the need to question the role of the veto within the Security Council? Finally, has he considered whether we should use resources that it is proposed should be deployed in national missile defence for purposes that would be more effective in resolving conflicts and combating global threats?
  Mr. Hoon: I had not intended to deal with all those points specifically. However, the Government have been strongly committed to the international institutions. The UN is showing its very great strength in these particular difficulties. Certainly the Government have supported a process of reform within the UN. I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that that process can proceed only by way of consensus within the UN. That approach has not always been the one that all Governments have been willing to take.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has indicated what we intend to do on the legislative front. The new Terrorism Act 2000 came into force in February, and extended the proscription regime to include 21 international organisations. As for the point made by the hon. Member for North Essex, the Act includes a definition of terrorism. Perhaps that is a useful starting point for examining terrorism both nationally and internationally. We are determined that the United Kingdom will not become a place where terrorists and their supporters can take refuge.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has set in hand an urgent review of the case for new powers, policies and other action that may be necessary in the light of what happened on 11 September. New legislation will be brought forward during this Session.
  As I have mentioned, the existing legal powers to tackle terrorism have been updated very recently. They are among the toughest in the world. Even so, as a measure of our determination, these powers will still be reviewed. Consideration is being given to providing the courts with new powers, improving the appeals process and cutting off terrorists' access to the money that they use to finance their operations. The Home Office is also considering proposals for tightening the asylum system to deal with those who seek to abuse it. Against this background, it is considering the means by which transport companies obtain a wide range of information on arriving passengers and then provide it to law enforcement agencies. All these measures are expected to have benefits to law enforcement agencies that are fighting related threats to our society such as drugs and organised crime, a point well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton.
  808
  The Home Office is also considering tightening the laws on incitement to cover religious as well as racial hatred, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) and other hon. Members.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Home Office has plans to deal with people such as Omar Bakri Muhammad and Abu Hamza, who are operating freely in our country and inciting people against our liberal traditions? They are inciting the wholesale murder of people with whom they disagree. What action will be taken against them? The people of Britain are offended that no action has been taken under the plethora of terrorist legislation that we already have.
  Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point in his usual style. The matter is being considered with some urgency in the Home Office. I understand that the shadow Home Office team has been briefed on the efforts that are being made.
  On the economic front, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out earlier in the week the new measures that we intend to take to ensure that no bank or financial institution, national or international, will be able to offer a hiding place for terrorist funds without fear of prosecution. These measures include police monitoring of accounts that may be used for terrorism, police powers to seize cash throughout the country, police powers to freeze funds at the outset of an investigation. tougher obligations on banks and financial institutions to report transactions that they suspect may be related to terrorism, supervising the implementation of the money laundering regulations by bureaux de change and money transmitters and allowing the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise to exchange relevant information with law enforcement authorities.
  Geraint Davies: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hoon: I need now to make some progress.
  These actions will be replicated across the world as nations respond to the obligations of the UN Security Council resolution 1373, taking the necessary measures to suppress the financing of terrorists and denying them a safe haven from which to operate.
  We recognise the powerful points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson). [Interruption.] I shall eventually get the pronunciation right of the constituency of Clydebank and Milngavie.
  The cold war ended 12 years ago. We knew what it meant when the Berlin wall came down. We knew that we were watching events that would reshape our lives, as we did when the twin towers of the World Trade Centre collapsed. The end of the cold war meant that threats to international stability were no longer likely to come from superpower rivalries, but instead from ethnic and religious conflict; population and environmental pressures; competition for scarce resources; drugs, crime and, of course, terrorism.
  Events over the past decade have, sadly, proved that we were right. There has been ethnic conflict in the Balkans, vicious internal conflict in Sierra Leone to gain control

  809
  of the diamond fields, and elsewhere endemic warfare in Africa. We knew that the world had changed, so we had to change to face the new challenges. The strategic defence review ensured that our armed forces were structured and equipped to operate and succeed in this new environment.
  The process of implementing the review is still under way, but already we are seeing the results. Our armed forces have deployed to Kosovo, East Timor, Sierra Leone and Macedonia, in each case acting with skill and determination and, only where necessary, with lethal force. They have, again and again, been a force for good in the world.
  The strategic defence review leaves us well placed to take on and defeat international terrorism. We have significantly improved capabilities, reconnaissance, intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, precision strike, rapid deployment, and sophisticated command and control, all of which will play their part in the campaign against international terrorism.
  The attacks on the United States have shown us that we must build on this success and go further. We must look harder at the kind of asymmetric threat that we saw on 11 September. We must ensure that our concepts, force structures and capabilities are exactly those that we need. That deals with the point made by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth).
  As I have already made clear, this will not be a new strategic defence review, but we need to add a new chapter to it and to look hard at our priorities in our plans and programmes, so that we can add capability where it counts—where it makes a difference. Just as the strategic defence review itself benefited from an open and inclusive approach, so will this further work draw fully on wider
  810
  opinion and expertise. I hope that, in the light of his extremely thoughtful remarks, my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) will contribute to that process. I invite the Opposition defence team to do the same. I am determined that the work will be as open and inclusive as it can be.
  The United Kingdom will respond to the challenge of meeting the new threats, but achieving our objectives—bringing Osama bin Laden to account, along with others who support him, and tackling the wider threat of international terrorism wherever it operates in our world—will not be easy. We are embarking on a new mission, requiring a multifaceted approach on a number of different fronts. It will involve a series of deliberate, co-ordinated steps. Can I appeal to Members of the House to judge the success of the overall strategy not by individual actions, but only by the results of the whole?
  Staying the course will be hard. It will be long. It may well be painful. We will have to show the patience and the resilience that we have shown in facing other threats in our history. Continuing the patient, careful strategy that we have begun is the way to achieve our goal. I know that the House will share our determination to see this through. At the very least, it is what we owe to those who died three weeks ago.
  Mr. Nick Ainger: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  International Terrorism

    ADJOURNMENT
    Resolved,
    That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger]
    Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Seven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Chief Constables (Eligibility)
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when military officers became ineligible for appointment as chief constables; and by what means. [4793]

  Mr. Denham
  The appointment of a chief constable is a matter for decision by the appropriate police authority, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. In making an appointment, a police authority will want to be fully satisfied that the individual selected has the necessary abilities and experience to lead an effective and efficient police force. Since the 1960s, regulations under the Police Act 1964 have included a requirement that no person may be appointed as a chief constable without prior experience in a supervisory police rank. Since 1979 that requirement has been for an appointee to have had at least two years' experience in the rank of superintendent or in a higher rank.

  Current guidance to police authorities indicates that appointment to all chief officer ranks in forces will only receive approval from the Secretary of State where the individual has attended the strategic command course for senior police officers. This guidance reflects a recommendation by the Home Affairs Committee (Third Report, Session 1988–89) that this should be a compulsory requirement for all applicants for posts at chief officer rank.

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of antisocial behaviour orders have been breached by individuals where that breach led to a custodial sentence. [4982]

  Mr. Denham
  Provisional data taken from the Home Office court proceedings database up to December 2000 show that 48 per cent. of offenders who have breached antisocial behaviour orders have been given a custodial sentence for the breach.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many antisocial behaviour orders have been issued in Sussex; and how many have led to subsequent court proceedings. [5937]

  Mr. Denham
  Available data show that up to 31 March 2001 four antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) have been issued within the Sussex area.

  Provisional data taken from the Home Office court proceedings database show that up to December 2000 two persons within the Sussex police force area have been proceeded against for the criminal offence of breaching an ASBO.

  Recorded Crime (North Oxfordshire)
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the level of recorded crime was in the North Oxfordshire area of the Thames Valley in each year from 1996 to 2000. [5757]

  Mr. Denham
  Overall numbers of recorded crimes at basic command unit (BCU) level are not collected centrally. Total numbers for certain categories of recorded crime have been collected centrally at BCU level since 1 April 1999. The information for the North Oxfordshire BCU is as follows:

  Number of Offences (in financial years)

  Offence Group

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Violence against the person

  1,323

  1,291

  Sexual offences

  74

  73

  Robbery

  72

  42

  Burglary of a dwelling

  692

  572

  Theft of a motor vehicle

  964

  740

  Theft from a motor vehicle

  1,695

  1,797

  Police (Working Conditions)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the working conditions of police inspectors and chief inspectors; what measures he plans to introduce to address the concerns raised; and if he will make a statement. [5203]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 19 July 2001]The inspectors central committee wrote to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) in March regarding the effects of changes made in 1994 to the working conditions for inspecting ranks.

  Decisions relating to the number of officers and the rank in which they are employed, together with assessing and addressing health and safety issues, are matters for chief officers.

  Prisons
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what records he keeps of the number of prisoners with psychiatric problems in each prison. [5501]

  Beverley Hughes
  All Prison Service establishments are required to submit monthly statistical returns on a range of health care activity to the prison health policy unit. The information provided includes the total number of prisoners receiving treatment in prison for mental health reasons, either as out-patients or in the health care centre; and national health service activity, including the numbers of prisoners who had been seen by a psychiatrist, and who had been transferred to hospital or who were awaiting such a transfer.

  Firearms
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimates he has made of the number of illegally held firearms in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [5787]
  797W
  Mr. Denham
  There is no reliable means of estimating the number of illegally held firearms in the United Kingdom.

  The existence of any illegal firearms is of great concern to the Government and we are fully committed to supporting the police and other law enforcement agencies in their efforts to combat the illegal possession and criminal use of firearms.

  The use of firearms in crime is small in relation both to overall national crime figures (0.1 per cent.) and to other comparable countries. We are liaising closely with the police to establish the source of illegal weapons. There is no evidence at present of organised and large-scale smuggling; nor does there appear to be a single main source of firearms.

  Armed crime cannot be tackled in isolation from other criminal activities, in particular drug trafficking and robbery. Tackling these crimes is one of the Government's highest priorities.

  Police Duties
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information is available to him to determine the percentage of a police constable's time spent on average(a) on patrol, (b) undertaking duties within a police establishment, (c) off sick, (d) on leave and (e) otherwise engaged, for the last year for which figures are available. [5484]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 20 July 2001]I wrote to the hon. Member on 20 September and placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Police (Manpower Targets)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what targets he has set for the total size of the police force in England for each of the next five years; and if he will make a statement. [5691]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 20 July 2001]On the basis of force projections, we expect police strength to reach record numbers by March 2003 (more than 128,300) and at least 130,000 officers by March 2004.

Preamble
The House met at ten of the clock, pursuant to Standing Order 16: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bradford.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

Palace of Westminster: Security
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, your Lordships will already be aware that, because of the heightened threat following recent events, measures have been taken to increase security at the Palace of Westminster. These include more strictly controlled access, both on foot and by vehicle. A fundamental element in these measures is the photographic identity pass, which should be carried at all times and produced on request. Vehicles will be subject to search and Members are therefore advised to allow sufficient time for their journeys, bearing in mind likely delays on arrival at the House.
Your Lordships will also have noticed the provision of armed police at key entry points in addition to our own Palace of Westminster security force, which will of course continue its normal duties to control access and to help Members and visitors. These are some of the temporary measures which have been implemented and which themselves form only part of the proposals for enhanced security following a major review under changed circumstances.
It is our intention that Black Rod, in conjunction with the Serjeant-at-Arms and the Metropolitan Police, presents these proposals to the appropriate committees of both Houses. Members will then be able to discuss and decide on the appropriateness of these measures set against the threat, the smooth functioning of our House, the principle of public access to Parliament and the cost of the measures themselves. I know that in the meantime your Lordships will give our security force your full support and co-operation.

US Terrorist Attacks: Developments
10.9 a.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister:
"Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to you for recalling Parliament on a second occasion so that the House can consider developments since it last met.
"Then the scale of the 11th September tragedy was still unclear. Even today we do not yet know the precise numbers of those feared dead. But a bleak
102
picture has emerged. There are up to 7,000 feared dead, including many British victims and others from 70 different countries. Many were Muslims. It cannot be said too often: this atrocity appalled decent Muslims everywhere and is wholly contrary to the true teaching of Islam. We condemn unreservedly racist attacks on British Muslims here, most recently at the Edinburgh mosque. These acts are without any justification whatever, and the full force of the law will be used against those who commit them.
"I pay tribute again to all those in America who have been involved in dealing with the human consequences of the attacks; the rescue services and medical workers who worked tirelessly and with devotion in the most harrowing conditions imaginable. I pay tribute to our own consular staff in New York and London and the family counsellors and Metropolitan Police officers who have supported relatives of the victims; and, above all, to the relatives themselves. Those I met in New York, still uncertain finally of the fate of their loved ones, bore their grief with immense dignity which deserves the admiration of us all.
"Since 11th September intensive efforts have taken place here and elsewhere to investigate these attacks and determine who is responsible. Our findings have been shared and co-ordinated with those of our allies, and are clear. They are: first, it was Osama bin Laden and Al'Qaeda, the terrorist network which he heads, that planned and carried out the atrocities on 11th September; secondly, Osama bin Laden and Al'Qaeda were able to commit these atrocities because of their close alliance with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan which allows them to operate with impunity in pursuing their terrorist activity.
"I will later today put in the Library of the House of Commons a document detailing the basis for our conclusions. The document covers the history of Osama bin Laden, his relations with the Taliban, what we know of the acts of terror he has committed, and some of what we know in respect of 11th September. I enter a major caveat. Much of the evidence we have is intelligence and highly sensitive. It is not possible without compromising people or security to release precise details and fresh information is daily coming in. But I hope the House will find it useful at least as an interim assessment.
"The Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Liberal Democrats have seen the full basis for the document on Privy Council terms. For myself and all other government Ministers who have studied the full information, we have absolutely no doubt that bin Laden and his network are responsible for the attacks on 11th September. That was also the unanimous view of the NATO members who were taken through the full facts on 2nd October. Much more of the evidence in respect of earlier atrocities cart be released in greater detail since it is already subject to court proceedings, and this in itself is powerful. Indeed, there is nothing hidden about bin Laden's agenda. He openly

103
espouses the language of terror, has described terrorising Americans as "a religious and logical obligation" and in February 1998 signed a fatwa stating that,
"the killing of Americans and their civilian and military allies is a religious duty".
"As our document shows, he has been responsible for a number of terrorist outrages over the past decade: the attack in 1993 on United States military personnel serving in Somalia where 18 United States military personnel were killed; the bombings in 1998 of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania where 224 people were killed and over 4,500 injured; attempted bombings in Jordan and Los Angeles at the turn of the millennium which were thankfully thwarted and the attack on the USS "Cole" nearly a year ago which left 17 crew members killed and 40 injured.
"The attacks on 11th September bear all the hallmarks of a bin Laden operation: meticulous long-term planning; a desire to inflict mass casualties; a total disregard for civilian lives, including Muslims; multiple simultaneous attacks; and the use of suicide attackers. I can now confirm that of the 19 hijackers identified from the passenger lists of the four planes hijacked on 11th September, at least three have already been positively identified as known associates of bin Laden with a track record in his camps and organisation. The others are being investigated still. Of the three, one has also been identified as playing key roles in both the east African embassy attacks and the USS "Cole" attack.
"Since the attacks we have obtained the following intelligence. Shortly before 11th September bin Laden told associates that he had a major operation against America under preparation. A range of people were warned to return to Afghanistan because of action on or about 11th September and, most importantly, one of bin Laden's closest lieutenants has said clearly that he helped with the planning of the 11th September attacks and has admitted the involvement of the Al'Qaeda organisation. There is other intelligence we cannot disclose of an even more direct nature indicating guilt.
"The closeness of bin Laden's relationship with the Taliban is also plain. He provides the Taliban with troops, arms and money to fight the Northern Alliance. He is closely involved with the Taliban's military training, planning and operations. He has representatives in the Taliban's military command structure. Forces under the control of bin Laden have fought alongside the Taliban in the civil war in Afghanistan.
"The Taliban regime for its part has provided bin Laden with a safe haven within which to operate and allowed him to establish terrorist training camps. They jointly exploit the Afghan drugs trade. In return for active Al'Qaeda support the Taliban allows Al'Qaeda to operate freely, including
104
planning, training and preparing for terrorist activity. In addition it provides security for stockpiles of drugs.
"In the face of this evidence our immediate objectives are clear. We must bring bin Laden and other Al'Qaeda leaders to justice and eliminate the terrorist threat they pose. We must ensure that Afghanistan ceases to harbour and sustain international terrorism. If the Taliban regime will not comply with that objective, we must bring about change in that regime to ensure that Afghanistan's links to international terrorism are broken.
"Since the House last met we have been working ceaselessly on the diplomatic, humanitarian and military fronts. I can confirm that we have had initial discussions with the United States about a range of military capabilities with which Britain can help and have already responded positively to this. We shall consider carefully any further requests and keep the House informed as appropriate about such requests. For obvious reasons I cannot disclose the exact nature of our discussions but I am fully satisfied that they are consistent with our shared objectives.
"I believe the humanitarian coalition to help the people of Afghanistan to be as vital as any military action itself. Afghanistan was in the grip of a humanitarian crisis even before the events of 11th September. Four years of drought on top of over two decades of conflict have forced millions of people to leave the country and have left millions more dependent on international humanitarian aid. Last week the United Nations launched an appeal for 584 million dollars to meet the needs of vulnerable people in and around Afghanistan. The appeal covers the next six months.
"The international community has already pledged sufficient funds to meet the most immediate needs. The British Government have contributed £25 million, nearly all of which has already been allocated to United Nations and other agencies. We have also made available a further £11 million for support for the poorest communities in Pakistan, especially those most directly affected by the influx of refugees. I know that President Bush will shortly announce details of a major United States programme of aid.
"I have been in detailed consultation with the United Nations Secretary General, Kofi Annan, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Ruud Lubbers, and other leaders. Kofi Annan has now appointed Lakhdar Brahimi to be his high level coordinator for the humanitarian effort in and around Afghanistan. We shall give Mr Brahimi all the support we can to help ensure that the United Nations and the whole of the international community come together to meet the humanitarian challenge.
"Action is already in hand to cope with additional outflows of refugees. UNHCR is working with the governments of the region to identify sites for additional refugee camps. The first UNHCR flight

105
of relief supplies, including tents donated by the British, Government, arrived in Iran yesterday. A second flight will depart at the end of this week carrying more tents, plastic sheeting and tarpaulins so that we can provide essential shelter for refugees. We are also stepping up the effort to get food into Afghanistan before the winter snows begin. A UNICEF convoy carrying blankets and other supplies left Peshawar for Kabul on Tuesday. A World Food Programme convoy carrying over 200 tonnes of wheat arrived in Kabul on Monday. Further WFP convoys have left for Afghanistan from Pakistan and Turkmenistan.
"We will do what we can to minimise the suffering of the Afghan people as a result of the conflict; and we commit ourselves to work with them afterwards inside and outside Afghanistan to ensure a better, more peaceful future, free from the repression and dictatorship that is their present existence.
"On the diplomatic front, over the past three weeks the Foreign Secretary and I have been in intensive contact with foreign leaders from every part of the world. In addition, the Foreign Secretary has visited the Middle East and Iran. I have visited Berlin, Paris and Washington for consultations with Chancellor Shröder, President Chirac and President Bush respectively. Later today I will travel to Moscow to meet President Putin.
"What we have encountered is an unprecedented level of solidarity and commitment to work together against terrorism. This is a commitment that spans all continents, cultures and religions, reinforced by attacks like the one on the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly in Srinagar which killed over 30 innocent people. We have already made good progress in taking forward an international agenda. Last week the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1373. This makes it mandatory for all states to prevent and suppress terrorist financing and requires the denial of safe haven to those who finance, plan, support or commit terrorist acts.
"The European Union too has taken firm action. Transport, interior, finance and foreign ministers have all met to concert an ambitious and effective European response: enhancing police co-operation; speeding up extradition; putting an end to the funding of terrorism; and strengthening air security.
"We are looking closely at our national legislation. In the next few weeks, the Home Secretary intends to introduce a package of legislation to supplement existing legal powers in a number of areas. It will be a carefully appraised set of measures; tough, but balanced and proportionate to the risk we face. It will cover the funding of terrorism. It will increase our ability to exclude and remove those whom we suspect of terrorism and who are seeking to abuse our asylum procedures. It will widen the law on incitement to include religious hatred. We will bring forward a Bill to modernise our extradition law.
106
"It will not be a knee-jerk reaction. But I emphasise that we do need to strengthen our laws so that, even if necessary in only a small number of cases, we have the means to protect our citizens' liberty and our national security.
"We have also ensured, in so far as it is possible, that every reasonable measure of internal security is being undertaken. We have in place a series of contingency plans governing all forms of terrorism. These plans are continually reviewed and tested regularly, at all levels. In addition, we continue to monitor carefully developments in the British and international economy. Certain sectors here and around the world inevitably have been seriously affected, though I repeat that the fundamentals of all the major economies, including our own, remain strong. The reduction of risk from terrorist mass action is important to economic confidence, as 11th September showed. So there is every incentive in this respect also to close down the bin Laden network.
"Three weeks on from the most appalling act of terrorism the world has ever witnessed, the coalition is strong. Military plans are robust. The humanitarian plans are falling into place. The evidence against bin Laden and his network is overwhelming. The Afghan people are not our enemy. They have our sympathy and they will have our support.
"Our enemy is Osama bin Laden and the Al'Qaeda network who were responsible for the events of 11th September. The Taliban regime must yield them up or also become our enemy. We shall not act for revenge. We will act because, for the protection of our people and our way of life, including confidence in our economy, we need to eliminate the threat bin Laden and his terrorism represent. We act for justice. We act with world opinion behind us. And we have an absolute determination to see justice done and this evil of mass terrorism confronted and defeated".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
10.25 a.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, once again, as on 14th September, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for repeating this comprehensive Statement and for making his earlier statement on security in the Palace of Westminster.
As he well knows, the Government have the full support of this side of the House in their war on terrorism. The Prime Minister spoke well on this subject earlier this week. I have no difficulty in saying that. The Prime Minister must know that whatever doubts there may be among some around him, we will support him in pursuing the machinery of terror, wherever it may be found, with vigour and persistence.
So I welcome the assurance that the Government are prepared to prosecute this fight for the rest of this Parliament, if need be. But in the event of armed action taking place, will the noble and learned Lord undertake to inform the House at the earliest

107
opportunity? Furthermore, given the large number of speakers in today's debate, will he soon offer a day for a further debate to which Home Office and international development Ministers can reply?
Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could go further than the Statement by telling the House what are our aims in Afghanistan. On Tuesday afternoon the Prime Minister told the Taliban, "Surrender bin Laden or surrender power". On Tuesday night, the Foreign Secretary said that we were not aiming to unseat the Taliban. I now understand that if they do not surrender bin Laden, it is our objective to force the Taliban to surrender power. If that is so, with what is it to be replaced? What are the Government's thoughts on the future of the government of Afghanistan? I believe that it is important to send clear signals in such circumstances.
I agree, and it is right, that the Government cannot share with the House information that would compromise our security and intelligence sources or those of any other country. I know that my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition is convinced by the evidence that was yesterday shown to him by the Prime Minister and that there is unequivocal evidence linking Al'Qaeda to these atrocities. I hope that the vast majority of Muslims across the world will be equally convinced.
However, I know that there is one thing on which we can all agree: there is no quarrel here with the faith of Islam. This is about terrorism and those who make apologies for it. I agree with what was said by Pope John Paul II and Muslim leaders during the Pope's visit to Kazakhstan:
"Terrorism profanes the name of God".
All people of all faiths will agree with that. We oppose root and branch hostility to Muslims, Christians or Jews on the grounds of their faith. On domestic matters, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord can tell the House if a Cabinet committee has been formed to prosecute the war and to advise the Government on the effects of such a war in this country. How often has it met so far? Can he also tell us what limits, if any, have been set in assisting Afghan refugees not only in the event of conflict, but also—as we can all see increasingly on our TV screens—in dealing with the very real problems now being caused in Pakistan by the massive influx of people fleeing from the problems of climate, starvation and fear of war? There is an unfolding humanitarian disaster in the making and we must seek to avoid it. Action taken now will avoid disaster later.
The Prime Minister has stated that the machinery of terror is worldwide. Last month the noble and learned Lord agreed with me when I spoke of the links between international terror and international organised crime. There are reports that the Government have frozen £60 million worth of funds which they believe are connected to the Taliban and related Afghan organisations. That is a disturbingly large sum for this country. Can he shed any light on what type of accounts they were? Were they personal accounts or
108
those of organisations? Have any of the holders of the accounts been resident in the United Kingdom? Have the Government frozen accounts relating to any other terrorist or criminal networks? Is the noble and learned Lord satisfied, for example, that no funds in Great Britain are at the service of Kosovo or Albanian organised crime?
Many will ask where the war against terrorism begins and ends. As a result of these new circumstances—this is a very important question—will there be any change in policy towards the IRA? Has the noble and learned Lord considered his response to my suggestion on 14th September that we revisit the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act in order to close the loophole deliberately left open to allow overseas funding of Sinn Fein/IRA?
Like others in this House, we are ready to look positively at whatever measures the Government may judge necessary to improve security at home in the present dangerous situation. However, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will give an undertaking that time will be given for full and proper consideration of any such measures so as to give noble Lords time to reflect and consult on the details of these measures. I believe that it would be helpful if the noble and learned Lord could give the House an indication of how much legislation he expects to be generated by the response to the crisis. Will new Bills, or new clauses of Bills already before Parliament, be introduced? The Home Secretary made a number of announcements to the Labour Party conference yesterday. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord can now clarify the Government's policy on identity cards.
I appreciate that I have asked the noble and learned Lord a number of questions. I know that he will understand and recognise that the issues are important. They are a signal that this House will expect to be fully engaged and informed in the weeks, months and possibly even years ahead. I am sure that he will have no difficulty in giving and following through an undertaking that we shall be able to debate these matters in future.
I close by repeating our wholehearted support for the strong backing rightly given by the Prime Minister to the American people at this time. I know that the noble and learned Lord and the whole House will join me in expressing our respect for the wise and statesmanlike way in which President Bush and the coalition created by him and his allies have responded thus far to this inhuman atrocity.
10.32 a.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I also thank the Leader of the House for the Statement that he has made. Perhaps I may add that I found it extremely impressive. Rather like the Prime Minister's speech yesterday, it rose to the occasion on a most remarkable scale. I believe that many of us respect and admire the visionary and, indeed, synoptic approach that the Prime Minister has taken to the issues that face us.

109
The Leader of the House referred again to the terrifying increase in the estimate of the number of people who lost their lives as a result of the tragedy on 11th September. He told us that the figure was now approaching, and might even exceed, 7,000, including a microcosm of the whole world: Muslims, Christians and Jews; people of all races and all religions; and people from many different nations. I believe that that sums up the fact that terrorism is a challenge to us all and not to any particular nation or group of people.
I also very much commend the Leader of the House on the details that he gave us about the evidence that is emerging with regard to the links with bin Laden. However, perhaps I may ask him the following questions. He told us—I believe that many of us are very satisfied—that the Prime Minister, the members of the Cabinet and the members of NATO have all accepted the evidence provided to them. Indeed, the Secretary-General of NATO gave a ringing statement about the extent to which he had been convinced by the evidence that he had seen.
However, tragically that particular evidence, seen by NATO and by British, American and other Governments, will not necessarily carry quite the same strength with some other countries in the world. Therefore, I wonder whether the Government will consider the possibility of placing such evidence as they can, without risking intelligence sources, before the Security Council in view of the remarkable strength of Resolution 1373. That resolution, as the Leader of the House said, was passed by the Security Council only a short while ago. I know that that may sound a rather radical suggestion, but we on these Benches believe that it is extremely important to identify the United Nations with the attack on terrorism in every possible way.
My second question to the Leader of the House concerns the matters that he raised with us with regard to new measures to be taken to deal with terrorism. Some points that he mentioned are obviously extremely encouraging; for example, the measures taken to deal with the terrorist network. However, together with many in this House, I believe that there is a considerable weakness in the structures of attacks on terrorism. I refer in particular to control of the funding of terrorism, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in the context of the IRA and other terrorist organisations.
Perhaps I may take that point one step further. Some in this House on all Benches have tried to press for detailed studies to be carried out of the laundering of money owned by certain developing countries, in particular Nigeria, Indonesia and others. I believe that we have found the machinery extremely inadequate. Now that we face a much more serious crisis with regard to the funding of terrorism, can the Leader of the House assure us that every possible step is being taken by the Government to tighten up on the illegal laundering of funds which, as he rightly said, is now occurring on an absolutely incredible scale? It includes drug funding, terrorist funding and, as we have
110
already said, the funding of money taken from developing counties at extreme cost to poverty-stricken countries.
My fourth question to the Leader of the House concerns the humanitarian crisis. We on these Benches, as, I am sure, will those on all other Benches, welcome very much the urgent measures being taken to bring food into Afghanistan. However, the Leader of the House will be aware that the crisis goes even further. It affects, among others, most of the countries of central Asia, which we are now trying to bring within the coalition as essential staging areas for any counter-attack on terrorism. Many people in this House will be aware that Tajikistan and Uzbekistan now have more than 1 million refugees. In some cases, thousands of people are on the edge of starvation. As the noble and learned Lord said, it is a regional crisis. Perhaps he can tell us something about the steps that the Government propose to take with regard to central Asia.
Finally, I turn to the proposal put forward by the Home Secretary and others to bring forward legislation on issues concerning internal steps against terrorism in this country. We on these Benches certainly welcome the attempt to tighten up extradition procedures. As I have already said, we certainly welcome the measures to tighten up the laundering of illegal funds. However, we would want to look very closely at any measures that may affect basic human rights. We on these Benches believe that conceding to the terrorist the very heartland of our own democracy would be a tragic step to take.
10.38 a.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am very grateful for the support given by both party Leaders. I was particularly grateful for the very generous remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I believe that everyone who was able to hear the Prime Minister's speech at Brighton, whether in the hall or on television, genuinely considered, without any question of partisan politics, that, as a country. we were extremely fortunate to have a national leader of that quality in these very harsh times. He is, of course, entirely supported by a wholly united Government.
A number of detailed questions were raised, and I shall trespass on your Lordships' time because I believe that they are too important not to be answered as fully as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, as, I believe, did the noble Baroness, made the point that Parliament must be fully informed, engaged and consulted. I agree entirely with that. I have no doubt that it was right to have been recalled on these two occasions. We are a parliamentary democracy. That is why, if I may say so without appearing patronising, we are better than Afghanistan. It is important to remember that. I hope that your Lordships will not find me derelict in doing all that I can to keep this House fully informed within the sensible parameters which both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness recognised. I repeat that, on a Privy Council basis, the leaders of both Opposition parties in the House of Commons have been fully briefed.

111
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, inquired about having a Home Office international development debate. I shall certainly give attention to that through the usual channels, as he would expect. He also inquired about our aims during these times. I know that the Statement was lengthy and full of material so I shall repeat the part of it which says,
"our immediate objectives are clear. We must bring bin Laden and other Al'Qaeda leaders to justice and eliminate the terrorist threat they pose … If the Taliban regime will not comply with that objective, we must bring about change in that regime to ensure that Afghanistan's links to international terrorism are broken".
I cannot put our aims more clearly or more succinctly than that.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked about Cabinet committees. I know that COBRA met last night at six o'clock. Obviously, all matters necessarily appropriate to the security of our country and people are kept under constant review, as the House would expect.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, inquired about the humanitarian aspect of the work upon which we are engaged. The Prime Minister said quite unambiguously, and I am happy to repeat on his behalf just as clearly, that he regards the humanitarian effort of which we are rightly in the vanguard as being just as important as the other objectives that I mentioned a few moments ago.
Questions were asked about the freezing of bank accounts. I am sorry to say that in the context that the noble Baroness mentioned, my experience that is, my vicarious experience—is that £63 million hardly begins to scratch the surface. Whether in my previous incarnation or my present one, I have always been of the opinion that we do not do sufficient to follow the money. I believe that everyone who has had anything to do with the prosecution of crime is of that view. To poach on the lawful patch of the Attorney-General, I say that we have not equipped ourselves with sufficient determination, sufficient intelligent reflection or sufficient weapons to attack what we all know is a vast subterranean industry that extends world-wide and which deals in billions, not the £63 million that was mentioned. The Pashtany bankers had six accounts frozen, the Banke Millie had 11 accounts frozen, the Da Afghanistan Bank had 13 accounts frozen, Ariana Airlines had two accounts frozen and Khalid Al-Fawwaz had one account frozen; that totals £63 million. I stress that that is hardly a beginning.
A question was raised about the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act. That will obviously be kept under careful review. On identity cards, what the Home Secretary said remains the position. He does not want to rush foolishly or inappropriately into introducing a measure unless he is satisfied about its purpose, cost and effectiveness. That is a prudent way to approach the matter.
112
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked about future debates. If I repeat what I said to him personally I am sure that he will not mind. My attitude is that we should be as accommodating as possible when the House is troubled and wishes to have debates on subjects that are of great national and public importance, even if that means that we sit outside our normal hours, as we are doing today and as we did on the first occasion of our recall.
I entirely and respectfully endorse what the noble Lord said about the proportionate response of the United States of America. As the Prime Minister said in the Statement that I repeated on his behalf the previous time that we met, we have not lashed out and we have not acted without reflection. Every member of the United States Administration pointed out—they did so at a very early stage, when it was unpopular to do so—that we are in for a long struggle and a long haul. There are no quick or immediate responses. Those who believe the contrary are not, I am afraid, living in a world that I recognise.
The noble Baroness asked about the provision of materials to the Security Council. I refer to the material that is available today in the Libraries of both Houses. I entirely agree with her. The difficulty, as she said, is that if one has intelligence one cannot disclose it, not least because the originators of that intelligence would be likely to be murdered if they were discovered. I think that we have done our best. All those Ministers who have seen the evidence have been convinced. I repeat that the leaders of the Opposition parties in the House of Commons were fully engaged by the Prime Minister, as the House would expect.
Much is being done about following the money. The financial action task force has done a good deal. I am aware of this matter from my own experience in the overseas territories and in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. I have to say that they have produced financial legislation that, speaking objectively, in some ways may well be more rigorous and effective than some of the legislation—we must be cautious—that we have within our own domestic jurisdiction. We should bear carefully in mind that the mote and the beam is quite a useful principle upon which to operate.
The noble Baroness's final observation involved sounding a word of caution. On bringing in legislation too quickly she said that we should not lose sight of the fact that the reason for our fortunate existence in this country is that we live in a civil society that is governed by law. I entirely endorse that.
I said that that was the noble Baroness's final question but it was not. Her final question raised specific matters about the other countries in the same general part of the globe. I entirely take her point. I repeat that the Prime Minister is leaving today to consult President Putin and to keep other appropriate leaders fully informed. He will also seek to engage them in a co-operative struggle, which I repeat—I do so, I am afraid, with a gloomy heart—is going to be a very, very long one.

International Terrorism
10.47 a.m
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean) rose to move, That this House takes note of further developments in international terrorism.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, when we last met, this House expressed its heartfelt horror and revulsion at what had happened only three days earlier in the United States. I am sure that today the grief, shock and disgust remain as strong. I am sure, too, that noble Lords will wish to discuss how we in this country and as a part of the international community can bend every sinew to ensure that those who are responsible are brought to account and that we do everything within our power to prevent such an atrocity from happening again. We look forward in particular to the maiden speeches of my noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Aberavon and my noble friends Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Temple-Morris.
This time yesterday morning I had just got off a plane from New York. After a weekend flying to other countries as the Foreign Office Minister with responsibility for the United States, I have this week seen for myself the reality of a city—a very great city—struggling to come to terms with the appalling atrocities of the terrorist attacks on 11th September.
Like many Members of this House, and like many people from Britain and around the world, I feel a strong connection to New York. Maybe it is because it is in some senses the ultimate city. It has been photographed many thousands of times in the cinema and in images that sum up at once both the essence of America and the skyscraper pinnacle of modern life. My own connection, like that of many others, is personal. When I had finished my degree at university I worked for a while in a merchant bank on Wall Street. I came to know and love New York—its vibrancy and noise, its swirl of movement and the sense of being at the centre of things.
New York this week was different. It was a quieter city—it was more subdued. It was a city in which, instead of the usual cacophony of traffic and car horns, there was a different sense: a sense of hurt, damage, suffering and sheer sadness. That was not found just at Ground Zero, at the site where the World Trade Centre stood just four weeks ago; there was sadness all over the city because a hurt to one is a hurt to all.
This hurt to America is indeed a hurt to all of us. But it goes further. This week I saw that the city of New York is not prepared to let these attacks succeed. New York is indeed pulling its community together in response to the attacks. I believe that this reaction is the response of all of us. Just as the attacks affected everyone, so too is everyone brought together by our response to them.
When the terrorists flew those hijacked planes into the twin towers of the World Trade Centre, into the Pentagon, and—were it not for the incredible bravery of those extraordinary people on the fourth plane who took on their hijackers, who knows where else would
114
have suffered?—they were not merely attacking a building or a group of people—savage and heartless though that was. No. They were specifically and deliberately attacking something else too. They were attacking ideas—ideas which are at the heart of what we all stand for. They were attacking ideas about freedom: freedom of opportunity; freedom of speech; freedom from oppression; and freedom of trade.
That is why we all stand shoulder to shoulder now with the United States. The attacks on America were, as we have said, an attack on all of us in the world community. That is why the world community has been so sure, so united, in its determination to come together as a community to tackle the clear and present danger from international terrorism. In terms of responding to terrorism, our nation's self-interest and our world's mutual interest are now as one.
Our objectives in dealing with terrorism are clear. Primarily they are twofold: to take action against Osama bin Laden and his associates and against those who harbour them, in a proportionate and targeted response to the vileness of the attacks of 11th September; and, beyond that, to take action to dismantle the apparatus and the mechanism of international terrorism, so that we all—wherever we are in the world—can feel safe and secure again.
We are already engaged on the second of those objectives. We are taking action at every level: first, in the UN, with a clear and binding declaration on all countries to act against the terrorists and all who give them sanctuary and support; and then this week, with Resolution UNSCR 1373, imposing obligations on all member states to respond to a global threat to international peace and security; and in particular in regard to the safe havens for terrorists and in regard to their finances—which is an enormously important part, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, made clear. In NATO there has been a determination, stated fully this week, to make real its core principle that an attack on one is an attack upon us all. In the EU there are pan-European measures to tackle money laundering and other means by which terrorists sustain themselves. And here in Britain the Government have been urgently looking at ideas to make sure that Britain is not a safe place for terrorists to be—but that Britain is a safe place to be against the threat from terrorists.
The Home Secretary has made clear that measures are being worked on by the Home Office as part of the Government's legislative response to terrorism. Those include making it an offence for financial institutions not to report transactions which they know or suspect to be involved in terrorist activity—a very important point. The measures include giving law enforcement agencies full access to passenger and freight information, which air and sea carriers will be required to retain. They include widening the law on incitement to include religious hatred as well as racial hatred and amending the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to ensure that those who are suspected or convicted of terrorist involvement cannot be considered for asylum.
There can be no compromise with terrorists. There can be no negotiation. There is no meeting of minds. There is instead a clear choice: to defeat terrorism or to be defeated by it.
We are asked how we know who is responsible. The Prime Minister's Statement which was repeated by my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House assured your Lordships that we shall put as much evidence forward as possible. I am sure that all noble Lords will understand that we cannot give details of intelligence information. We cannot reveal information which would compromise our sources, undermine national security or threaten the safety or effectiveness of our Armed Forces. As the Statement made clear, the Government are in no doubt as to who planned and organised this atrocity. We are in no doubt as to who organised the training of those who carried it out.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister could not have teen clearer, he could not have spoken more for us all, when he spelt out this week the message to the Taliban: surrender the terrorists, or surrender power. That is their choice.
But this is emphatically not a fight with the people of Afghanistan. No one understands better than the Afghan people the terrible human suffering caused by the policies of the Taliban regime: the unrelenting civil war; the failure to allow aid to relieve the worst drought in living memory; the starvation of children; the total lack of freedom for women; the isolation from the rest of the world.
That is why in helping to forge a coalition to defeat terror, Britain is working hard to forge a coalition of equal importance: a humanitarian coalition to help the Afghan people now, in the current crisis, and, as importantly, in the future, in rebuilding their economy, their country and their lives.
Just as we are taking action against the threat and the reality of international terrorism, so too we are attaching equal priority to addressing the humanitarian needs of the Afghan people in rebuilding their country. Since the events of 11th September, we are providing an extra £36 million in aid for the region—on top of the £32 million given since 1997. That aid will mean food, water and blankets—it will also mean hope for the refugees.
We want to work with all responsible Afghans to bring peace to their country and to help set it on the path to stable development. Afghanistan does not need Osama bin Laden; it does not need the Taliban; and it certainly does not need terrorism. It needs irrigation and agriculture. Afghanistan needs to be able to put food in its children's stomachs. It needs schools, hospitals, roads, and a real future.
Afghanistan and its people have been ill served by those who have made their country a centre for terrorism across the world. It is also a centre for drugs. The two are inextricably linked: buying drugs here, on our streets, and funding terrorism there, in the training camps. Illicit drugs doubled in Afghanistan in the
116
three years after the Taliban took power. We calculate that over 90 per cent of the heroin on our own streets originates from Afghanistan.
I want to say a word about the international coalition. When my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary visited Iran, he discussed how we should work together on a crisis that threatens the Muslim world every bit as much as it threatens the West. He discussed with president Khatami and the Iranian Government how our two countries can work together to help the refugees who are already seeking shelter in Afghanistan. Many profound difficulties still exist in our bilateral relationship with Iran. But we must, in the current circumstances, build on what we have in common, without glossing over those differences.
Let us be clear that the evils of Osama bin Laden and the Al'Qaeda are sanctioned by no faith. When the Foreign Secretary visited Egypt, that message was reinforced by the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar—the spiritual leader of the Sunni Muslims. He said that the terror attacks went completely against the teachings of Islam. The Saudi Grand Mufti also condemned the attacks on 15th September. So also have the Muslim Council of Great Britain and many others. So let there be no doubt: Muslim leaders, secular and religious, have indeed condemned the attacks, and they have done so fully and unequivocally.
At home and abroad, this Government will continue to emphasise that this war against terrorism is not a war against Islam. Muslim states are among those leading international political and diplomatic efforts to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks. Of course, I include in that Pakistan, and we applaud in particular the courage of General Musharraf at what is an especially difficult time.
Our recent contacts with leaders in the Middle East and elsewhere, as well as furthering our efforts to build an international consensus against terrorism, have enabled us to press them to do all that they can to contribute to the search for peace in the region. Few parts of the world have suffered more from terrorism than the Middle East. When my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary spoke last week to the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, and the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, about the latest moves for peace, he stressed how determined Britain is to help the two sides reach a lasting and just settlement.
We must reinvigorate the peace process. Our priority now is to see the recent dialogue between Mr Arafat and the Israeli Foreign Minister, Peres, develop into a sustained contact. Indeed, swift and full implementation of the Mitchell recommendations is needed. The parties must take rapid steps to ensure that their commitments are turned into reality on the ground. The continuing violence—indeed, the violence of the past 24 hours—serves only to make clear that both sides must now redouble their efforts to enforce the ceasefire.
Peace with security can come only through a political process which allows the emergence of a viable, democratic and peaceful Palestinian state,

117
committed to co-existence with Israel and recognised and respected by Israel. For its part, Israel must be given recognition by all, its people freed from terror and its part in the future of the Middle East fully accepted.
We stand at a daunting point for our country and for our world—indeed, for our values. Difficult though the prospect is, I am sure that this House believes that our country will not falter in what we now have to do, because, of course, we may well see military action. If we do—as I am sure the whole House knows, and I certainly know as a former Defence Minister—our Armed Forces will acquit themselves well. They are second to none as fighting forces. At this difficult moment, we can be confident in their capabilities, commitment and courage. In what we ask them to do for us all, we can be proud that we know what their answer will be.
I am sure that there will be many questions about what action may be involved. No one can or should answer those questions with any precision at this stage, because to do so would undermine the very effectiveness of the tasks with which we may be entrusting our servicemen and women. However, let me assure the House that if we do engage in military action, we will do everything that we can to avoid civilian casualties. Our enemy is not the people of Afghanistan, or the real followers of Islam. I believe that the last three weeks have shown beyond doubt that everyone involved in this fight against terrorism is determined to proceed with care and deliberation.
New York, Washington and America are showing that such a force for evil can indeed be turned into a force for good. The extraordinary unanimity of the world community is showing us that the world is drawing together to make sure that good can and will come out of evil. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for the tribute that he paid to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, who from the first moment of this disaster has worked so tirelessly to forge and sustain that coalition. I also echo what the noble Lord said about President George W. Bush. America, too, has a leader who is responding to his country's most momentous challenge in modern history. In Mayor Rudi Giuliani, New York has found someone who has been steadfast, who has in the past three weeks never lost either his nerve or his compassion, and who has been able to articulate not only the pain and anguish of his city and his country, but its hopes and determination for the future.
Your Lordships may be interested to know that we have long planned for the end of this month an event called "UK in New York". Now we have renamed it "UK with New York". Many of us will take part in the celebrations in the city of our country's cultural, economic and trading ties with America. All of us here pay tribute to the resilience of New Yorkers, to those who have lost loved ones and are trying to rebuild their normal lives and, of course, especially to those in the fire, medical and emergency services who gave up their lives in trying to save others.
My noble friend Lady Amos and I want also to pay tribute to the incredible work that has been done since 11th September by British Government staff there. Tom Harris, the British Consul General, his deputy Duncan Taylor and all their team—every single one of them—have performed magnificently in most difficult circumstances.
We now look ahead to the fight against terrorism. We know that it will be long and hard. We will have to deploy all the tools available—military, economic, diplomatic and legislative. We must do our utmost to prevent further such attacks. The international consensus against terrorism is widespread and growing. As the Leader of the House has been able to tell us, the Prime Minister will again be travelling to ensure that he does everything in his power to bring that consensus together. We will proceed with deliberation and with care. Counter-terrorism is at the top of our agenda. It is the overriding priority for our country and the world community.
One of the most telling images of the terrible sights that followed 11th September was that of the emergency and rescue workers raising their country's flag above the rubble of what, only a few days before, had been a symbol of modern America and modern civilisation. It is our job now, the job of all of us, also to raise the flag—the flag of justice, of democracy and of freedom—because our values and beliefs are right. Decency, compassion, fairness and justice are our ideals; those are what we are fighting for. Out of this evil, good must come.
Moved, That this House takes note of recent developments in international terrorism.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
11.7 a.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, more than three weeks after the atrocities, the grieving continues and grows even more intense as the horror sinks in, as the noble Baroness eloquently described. However, I think that she and your Lordships would agree that the passage of three weeks also allows us to make a little more sober analysis of the full implications of what happened, and to begin to shape a longer-term strategy to deal with this terrorist-ridden world and the new threats to everyone. It is no criticism whatever of the Government, whose actions we totally support, when I say that, despite clear indications of the immediate objectives, despite the excellent speech that we have just heard and despite the Prime Minister's eloquent venting of aspirations that we all share, it is not yet entirely clear—indeed, it could not be, such are the great uncertainties with which we are dealing—how we shape our longer-term response; how we change our lives, policies and approaches to the world after the atrocities of 11th September.
I want briefly, at the beginning of what will be a long and no doubt well-informed debate, to offer two starting points for consideration of that longer-term scene and how we build on immediate events. The first is one on which there is no disagreement: simply, there will be no knock-out punch; no immediate settling of

119
scores; no quick fix. I am afraid that there will be nothing to bring joy to the CNN cameramen and the other media people who long for some spectacular event to put on screen and who, in the absence of such an event, to describe events that have not happened. They set out dramatic, heroic scenes of how this or that special force might raid this or that lair and throw bombs in this or that direction.
None of that will happen. Indeed, I hope that whatever happens will be kept secret. I accept the view of the noble Baroness that, as a democracy, we do not wish to know the full details, the intelligence and the minutiae of future plans. Too much disclosure will help the enemy. We have heard clearly this morning, both in the Statement of the noble and learned Lord and in the speech of the noble Baroness, about the immediate objectives. As I understand it, the first objective is to "topple" the Taliban. Some are now talking of replacing the Taliban with a "moderate" Taliban rather than with any coalition with the Northern Alliance, which has its own faults and problems and is not exactly unified. That may succeed. It will require both politics and internal pressures and will be extremely complex. I am not sure who the more moderate Taliban are; whether they are more acceptable to Islamabad and the Pakistan Government. However, that appears to be the intention, otherwise there would be a hopeless vacuum.
The other more spectacular intention, declared on all sides, is to capture the monster Osama bin Laden. I hope that that can be done. I understand he is now in a Russian-built anti-nuclear bunker somewhere on the borders of Tajikistan, or may even have fled from there. However, he will have to be winkled out before the winter because when the winter comes those sorts of ground operations will be impossible. We hope and pray that that succeeds and that he is brought to justice.
But when those immediate objectives have been achieved, we will all have to take a deep breath and realise that we are dealing not just with one poor organisation; not just with one country. Al'Qaeda is a world-wide network; it is not a pyramid hierarchy. It is drug-financed. It extends its tentacles throughout the world and I have no doubt it has been planning many other atrocities, including those in New York and Washington, for a long time.
We learn that the New York horrors were in the pipeline for possibly three or four years. Something planned one or two years ago may now be in the pipeline. We must be realistic. If these things are to be stopped in their tracks, then the campaign has to be fought on far wider fronts than military events and things that can be filmed for the television news in the evenings. We have to deal with a vast variety of operations.
In that regard I agree that cutting off the oxygen of finance is absolutely crucial. I am glad we are freezing all accounts in this country. I shall be interested to hear what we can do to assist others in freezing the whole so-called "Havala" network of funds which circulate
120
around the Middle East. Much of it comes from people who are part of the coalition and who we need as friends. Much of it comes out of Saudi Arabia in enormous quantities.
As the Leader of the House rightly said, the sums involved are far bigger than the mere millions about which we have heard. The total drug turnover of the world is estimated to be between £500 billion and £600 billion. Afghanistan and the surrounding countries are presently the centre of at least half that trade. So we are talking about billions flowing through the monetary network and they must be cut off before the next horror visits us.
That is my first point. My second point is also a slightly gloomy one, though I hope to come to a more positive note. We are living against the background of a rising terrorist trend. RAND estimated that in the 1990s there were more than three times as many terrorist incidents and civilians killed than in the 1980s and the 1970s. Things are swinging the terrorist way. Conditions are getting easier for the terrorist. The New York Trade Centre event was new in the sense of the magnitude; but the trend is established and it is deep and sinister.
We knew long before 11th September that tiny cells could destroy great structures with increasing ease, for two reasons. One is that the weaponry is now miniaturised and it is much easier to kill people in large numbers. Indeed, in a way the weaponry has become simpler. As someone pointed out, 6,000 deaths were caused on 11th September with the use of a Stanley knife, or a Swiss army penknife. That level of horror was achieved with a simple piece of weaponry, though obviously there was vast planning behind it.
The second reason is that our society is now much more vulnerable than it was 50, 30 or even 10 years ago. It is also more complex and therefore contains more nerve centres and points at which a terrorist can aim with deadly effect in terms of lives of civilians in massive numbers.
Against that background of the grim reality that we live in an age particularly encouraging, post-Cold War, to terrorism, and particularly easy for terrorists, what should be the main elements of our strategy? The Government and Ministers pointed to some, but perhaps I may add a small list which I hope will be of some help.
First, I totally agree—I have heard no disagreement anywhere—with the Government's insistence on condemning utterly the attempt to arouse religious hatred and incitement and to depict what we are dealing with as a clash between one religion and another; between Christianity and Islam. As the Prime Minister said, such attempts are "despicable" and we must never rest from ensuring that such attempts are suppressed. The idea that Islam is militant is absurd. In history Muslims were considerably gentler conquerors than the extremely brutal Christians. But whatever the history, they are our allies and our brothers.
We do not need to tell our Muslim friends that extremism must be contained. They stepped forward to sympathise deeply with the United States in its

121
agony. But this extremism exists on both sides. Just as we will have no truck with the semi-racism and Nazism used against Islamic people or those of other religions, so I am sure the Muslim leaders recognise that they too must have no truck with and be completely dissociated from not so much jihad, which may mean no more than a struggle in oneself against sin, but against concepts such as jihad al saghir, which means go out and shed blood and kill people—and even more against the kind of fatwah which the noble Lord mentioned earlier. The World Islamic Front fatwah of 1998 enjoined all Muslims, not merely as a duty but as an individual duty, to go out and kill Americans and their allies in any way at any opportunity. So that extremism too needs to be sidelined from our affairs, and. I am sure it will be.
Secondly, there is the question of the defence forces. The Defence Secretary Mr Hoon tells us he is thinking of rebalancing our forces. Perhaps we could hear a little more as to what that means. If it means that we are going to need more special forces, then that is long overdue in this world of new enemies. John Simpson, the distinguished foreign affairs correspondent, wrote in an interesting column that what are now needed are "invisible skills". They will require new equipment. Rows of tanks, fleets of helicopters and divisions of armed men are no longer necessarily the best security for our citizens or world peace.
While dwelling on security I agree with the Prime Minister that, far from abandoning the national missile defiance concepts against rogue states, we need to reinforce them and help America more to rejig the whole of our nuclear deterrent thinking.
Thirdly, the noble Baroness mentioned the grand coalition. 'That is going well and Ministers must be commended on zipping round the world and doing their best. The only advice that one should have is that they should perhaps pack a long spoon in their luggage as they visit some of our coalition friends. It should never be forgotten that people who are as much against terrorism as we are may have their own agendas which they may pursue under cover of the general bonhomie of the coalition. I particularly worry about those who want to destabilise Saudi Arabia. That would be a world disaster on a bigger scale than anything so far. At the moment the price of oil has been the dog that did not bark: on the contrary it has become weaker and not stronger. If somehow Saudi Arabia lost its balance with its extreme Wahabi sect pouring money into the poisoned well of the terrorists and the rulers trying to stay alongside America, but losing their grip as a result, a direct result would be the end of a producer of world oil and catastrophic shortages, interruptions and prices rises, which would make anything that has gone so far look mild.
We have to tighten internal security. My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith will have more to say on that. I simply say what has already been said; namely, that we must do nothing to undermine the liberties and law-based government which we are trying to protect and which the terrorists are trying to destroy. I am personally glad that the idea of identification cards has been put on the back burner because they would not
122
help to catch terrorists. The German experience, where there is a very tough regime with compulsory identity cards, had made no difference at all. Indeed, much of the recent plot was hatched in Germany.
Finally, do we change policy? One's instinct is never to change it as a result of a terrorist act. Any changes that we make should be far more carefully considered than those arising from events of 11th September. I notice that before that date the United States was planning to bring forward a new strategy for the Middle East. I share totally the Israeli outrage at bombers who blow Israeli men, women and children to pieces in the shopping bazaars. Like the noble Baroness, I wish to see Israel's existence, and right to exist, totally guaranteed. As US policy indicates, I believe that the time is coming when the state of Palestine will come into being and the Israelis will have to accept it. That may be the beginning of the removal of that element of poison in the system. It has nothing to do with responding to terrorism, but is part of a longer-term policy.
I have said more than enough and taken my share of the time. We heard a great deal of talk about war. I believe, with the noble Baroness, that the real war is on poverty in Afghanistan and elsewhere. That is the breeding ground for terror. The causes of it are not Islam, which is an absurd suggestion. How could that be? Some of the richest countries in the world are Islamic. The main causes are had governance, corruption, excessive state powers, crippling taxation and—I hope noble Lords will forgive the phrase—oldfashioned state socialism.
The cure is not armies, but letting in the daylight of global markets, investment, trade and enterprise. As the Prime Minister indicated in his fine speech, those who oppose the global economy are unwitting supporters of the very conditions in which terrorism thrives, both the poverty from which it arises and the poverty and misery which it creates, as the World Bank reminded us in its assessment of what 11th September will do to the poor of the world.
That is why the world centre of trade and investment was the target and why those who want a fairer, less violent and freer world should fight to the last for open trade, open investment and open societies in which terrorism has no place to hide and, indeed, no place at all.
11.24 a.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, before moving to some of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, perhaps I may return to what the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, said in her very powerful speech. One of her central themes was that good should come out of evil. The noble Baroness spoke of some of the ways in which that might happen. There are two in particular that I wish to highlight. The first is the astonishing dedication of the public services of New York, the firemen, ambulancemen, doctors and many others, including ordinary citizens, who risked their lives helping others. That was one shaft of light in an otherwise a turbulent sea of darkness.

123
The second piece of good that may come from evil is the recognition now running very deep in the United States that it is no longer an invulnerable country. For a long time the United States was given to what is sometimes called American exceptionalism, the feeling that unlike the rest of us it was not subject to the suffering and extraordinary tumult of the world. I believe that that lesson has been well learned. It is very striking that the American Administration has begun to move towards a more multilateral policy. In particular, it has accepted the concept of an alliance covering many nations, with many different attitudes and philosophies.
It is worthwhile underlining attitudes in Britain. When George W Bush was elected—I certainly do not exempt myself from this criticism—there was a tendency to produce a great number of cartoons about Texan cowboys. There was the use of the word "Dubya" with the implicit sense of contempt contained in it. I believe that almost none of us could have imagined that Mr Bush would reach such a careful, sensible and patient approach to international affairs. A phrase which I believe is now used a great deal in Washington, and which I am sure is very familiar to the noble Baroness, is "strategic patience". It is not one which is immediately associated with the United States. I believe that it owes a great deal not only to the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and the pressures of America's allies, but also to the wisdom of the senior Mr Bush who has been through all this before. Whatever the reasons may be, I believe that all of us feel much more confidence in the present American Administration than we might have done three months ago. It has been an amazing response.
As regards good coming from evil, the next point I wish to raise concerns the coalition. No one should be under any impression that it is other than a very fragile creature. I read recently some reports about the number of young men in Indonesia who are putting themselves forward as potential recruits for the mujaheddin defending Afghanistan and not attacking it. It is a very troubling set of reports from that country. The same is also true of many young men in Pakistan.
One of the difficulties of the coalition is that we have not yet won the hearts and minds, particularly of unemployed young people with few prospects in many of these troubled and poverty-stricken countries. That is why the twin-track approach is so crucially important. As the Leader of the House indicated, we have to deal not only with terrorism, which is difficult enough, but also give some kind of hope to a generation of young people for whom committing suicide may be the most attractive option open to them. It is a terrible thing to say.
Perhaps I may return to the question I asked the Leader of the House about the Statement. In the coalition there is still the issue of carrying conviction as regards the evidence against Osama bin Laden. I fully recognise the limitations. I underline again that in so far as we can make some confidential information available only to the Secretary-General, it might be
124
very helpful in providing a global basis for an attack on terrorism and a global conviction that that is right. In many ways Kofi Annan is the representative of the whole of humanity and is so considered throughout the world. The more that we can involve the United Nations and in particular the Secretary-General, the stronger our position in that somewhat fragile coalition is likely to be.
I was somewhat concerned by the discussion introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, about the possibility of imposing a government on Afghanistan. I am puzzled. Whether that imposed government is moderate Taliban or whether it is the Northern Alliance, the central issue is that if we are to carry conviction within the coalition, there must be some test of opinion within Afghanistan itself.
My noble friend Lord Ashdown will talk more about this, but I find it puzzling that we have not discussed the possibility of a UN protectorate in Afghanistan for a substantial interim period until the refugees have returned and until it is possible to establish a wide measure of opinion for a successor government. One of the reasons why I am somewhat puzzled is because of the success in East Timor of precisely that procedure under which the Timorese returned as refugees, settled again in their own country and eventually, after several months, were able to give their own views about the kind of government they wished to govern them and whether or not they should be independent of Indonesia. I mention that because I think that imposing any solution on a Muslim state would, to say the least, set up hostages for the future.
I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, about the importance of moving against discrimination on the basis of religion. Many of us here will remember that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, and others have continually pushed for this approach. It is only because of the current crisis that we now see the urgency of that statement.
We must not be hypocritical. Central to our view of human rights and of life is the sacred nature of the individual human being. In that context, we have to admit that the terrible events in Rwanda and Srebrenica, when 7,000 young Muslims were killed in cold blood, did not elicit the kind of response that we are making now. I understand why, but if we are to have solidarity between religions and embark on an attack on terrorism, we must begin to recognise the value of Muslim, African and Asian life, as well as the value of European and American life. I feel that we still have a long way to go.
I turn now to the internal structures, which I shall mention only briefly as I do not want to detain the House. There are two important points to make. First, I refer to indefinite detention without arrest or charge being made. I hope that the Government will think carefully about this issue. We know from experience in Northern Ireland that detention without an attempt to bring charges can be counter-productive. This is the area about which we on these Benches are most troubled. There must be a basis on which detention for a period has to be justified. We note that the

125
Prevention of Terrorism Act, which provides for the right to extend the period for which someone can be detained for questioning, has been used only in a small number of cases. Will the Government consider how far that legislation already meets the needs that we have? There are undoubtedly real needs. I do not deny the need to investigate and question people who are suspected of terrorism.
Secondly, I add to what I said before about the funding of terrorism and other money laundering issues. The Leader of the House was gracious enough to admit that there is a weakness in this area. The approach to laundered funds is deeply flawed by the divisions within the government structure. There are least three ministries with some responsibility, including the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry and, curiously, the Home Office, which is responsible for many of the investigations, and one agency, the Financial Services Authority.
The Government often speak, reasonably, about joined-up government. I can think of few stronger examples of fractured government, and it would be helpful if over the next few months the Government would think about how to tighten up these serious divisions—I appreciate that they are already beginning to do so—in their counter attack on terrorist funds.
My final remarks concern an issue on which I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Howell. One of the breeding grounds of terrorism is unquestionably poverty. It is striking that the latest report of the Centre for Economic and Policy Research, an international and much-respected body, shows that the past 20 years of economic growth have been much less productive for the poorest countries of the world than the previous 20 years—1960 to 1980. It even demonstrates the rapid widening of economic inequalities between rich and poor, and suggests that in the poorest countries in the world there has been a net drop in per capita income in the past 20 years. That is pretty devastating when the rest of us have benefited hugely from economic growth.
That has to be addressed more profoundly than by aid alone. We must look again at the world's deep inequalities and at how international bodies, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, deal with those inequalities, sometimes caused by structural pressures which are almost beyond their capacity to bear. In this context, I add Russia. Despite its great interest in identifying with us against terrorist action, from which it has suffered greatly, it is suffering profoundly from the weakness of its economic system. We cannot neglect that entirely if Russia is to become an ally. Nor can we totally neglect some of the action that Russia has taken in Chechnya and pretend that Russia can be part of our counter-attack. There are limits to what we ought to do.
My final point is a different, philosophic one, which was brought to my attention by people with a much greater knowledge and closer understanding of
126
terrorism than I have. The current situation has been created not only by economic conditions. These men and women believe profoundly in what they are doing and reject our way of life in all kinds of ways. They reject our beliefs, values, commitment to human rights, our individualism, and so on. One of the sources of that profound rejection lies in 'what many people in the developing world see as their traditional ancient structures which offer some kind of protection against the pressures of the world. We have to understand the desire that people have to belong to something and somewhere, and the way in which poverty drives them to identifying more closely with the communities and groups to which they belong. There are not only economic causes and military sources of terrorism, but something that we in the western world hardly understand at all, which is the spiritual source of terrorism. That issue must also be profoundly addressed.
11.37 a.m.
Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, my first pleasant task is to thank so many of your Lordships and staff for the welcome, the kindness and practical help that I have already received since coming to your Lordships' House. It has been particularly pleasant to renew friendships in all parts of the House with those whom I have known and met in my 41 years in the other place.
Parliament has been recalled for the second time in the long Recess. I cannot remember that happening before. I turn immediately to the reasons for the recall, and pay the highest tribute to the Prime Minister's role since the terrible events of 11th September. He has reacted in a measured, caring way, which was crystallised in the speech that he made on Tuesday. He said succinctly that the action that we take will be proportionate and targeted and that we will do all that we can to avoid civilian casualties. The words "proportionate" and the need for targeting and avoiding "civilian casualties" derives from the general principles of customary international law, codified in Protocol I of the 1949 Geneva Convention. Action should not be indiscriminate and should not cause excessive damage to civilians.
It is in the public domain that as Attorney-General I played a ministerial role in the Kosovo campaign. Perhaps I may say that the Prime Minister's Statement has always been our approach and I trust that it always will be so.
It is vitally important that the leaders of the coalition use the correct language to justify the action taken. It would be foolish for our aims to be confused by an argument about ill-chosen words. That is what the clever men and women who advise world leaders are supposed to ensure does not occur. The speech writer who allowed such a word as "crusade" to be used had no sense of history whatever. International law does not allow for "revenge" or "retaliation".
However, self-defence is allowed, as the noble and learned Lords, Lord Howe of Aberavon and Lord Mayhew of Twysden, and the noble Lord. Lord

127
Brennan, said in the previous debate, and self-defence is a wide-ranging concept. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, said:
"No state should be required to wait until an attack has in fact been launched and only then try to parry the blow".—[Official Report, 14/9/01; col. 31.]
It could not have been said better.
I welcome the Security Council resolutions of 12th and 28th September,
"recognising the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the charter",
and expressing its readiness to,
"take all necessary steps",
to deal not only with the attacks of 11th September but all forms of terrorism. The resolution of 28th September,
"decides that states shall deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support or commit terrorist acts".
It is never easy to reach agreement on the form of words that emanate from the Security Council. I believe that the action we take, provided that it is proportionate, is well within the ambit of our rights under the charter.
Osama bin Laden undoubtedly presides over scores of training camps for the export of terror. There are demands for the evidence to be publicised now. We have not yet seen the interim statement to which the Prime Minister referred. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, the NATO Secretary-General, said on Tuesday after an American briefing that the facts,
"are clear and compelling…The information points conclusively to Al'Qaeda's role in the attacks".
I accept that the limitations set out by the Prime Minister today for saying nothing more now is that the sources and methods of obtaining information would be compromised. That was my experience both as a defence Minister and as a Law Officer. It is not only bin Laden who is wanted but his organisation, and his capacity to commit further acts of terrorism has to be destroyed.
However, if the leaders survive, they will have to be brought to justice. Obviously they should be tried in the American courts for the events of 11th September. That is the stage when sufficient evidence will have to be produced to secure convictions.
Turning from terrorism, for which there is ample judicial machinery, it is sad that the International Criminal Court, which the government in which I served were in the vanguard in sponsoring, is still not in being. The last Bill in the previous Parliament cleared the decks for our ratification of its treaty. I understand that we are about to ratify. Thirty-eight countries have already done so. Sixty countries are needed to ratify for the court to come into being. Sadly, the United States does not accept it; certainly not in its present form. At last April's meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the British delegation, of which I was a member, succeeded in obtaining unanimous agreement to encourage countries to ratify.
128
A global alliance is not a one-way street and I hope that the tragedy of 11th September will bring home to all the need to reconsider the repercussions of all forms of isolationism. I see signs of that happening. The diplomatic map of national interest has been redrawn since 11th September. I welcome the emphasis on diplomatic and financial action as well as military. I particularly welcome the concern and the action already taken in order to try to alleviate the human catastrophe in Afghanistan this winter.
The coalition that is being built already manifests different degrees of enthusiasm for particular action. That is understandable; countries have their own domestic agendas. The greater the action that is taken the greater the need for us to be on our guard against the coalition unraveling. In the days ahead, world leaders will have some awesome tasks and duties and our sympathies are with them.
11.46 a.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House, I am both honoured and delighted to congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, on an admirable and indeed memorable maiden speech. It was certainly measured, proportionate and targeted.
The noble and learned Lord has served his country so well in four different but inter-linked areas of our national life: military, law, politics and government. He served in the Royal Welch Fusiliers and then he achieved a law degree from the University of Aberystwyth and from Gonville and Caius College Cambridge. He was called to the Bar in 1954. He entered the other place as an extremely young Member in October 1959 and served for almost 42 years. During that time he had government portfolios of power, transport and defence. Latterly he was Secretary of State for Wales from 1968 to 1970 and lastly Attorney-General from 1997 to 1999. All noble Lords will realise that that is a most impressive list and shows his breadth of experience and expertise.
I said that I was delighted as well as honoured to congratulate the noble and learned Lord because my late husband and I were personal friends of the whole Morris family for more than 30 years. The one thing I have learnt about the noble and learned Lord was that there is one word which epitomises his whole character and dedication to national life; it is the word "wisdom". That is something which we need in this House. We have it in great abundance but the more we have, particularly at times such as this, the more we can benefit. I hope that we shall have many opportunities to benefit from that wisdom in his future contributions to our debates.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I wish to say at the outset that my contribution today in this most important debate will not be an assessment of recent developments in international terrorism. They were well described in today's Statement, so ably delivered by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons. Nor will it be an

129
emotive response to the devastating events of 11th September. However, like most Members here today the events of that day are just as vivid in my mind as they were three weeks ago and will surely never fade. No words can adequately express our feelings of sharing the suffering of our fellow men and women and wishing that we could do something.
There has been an enormous amount of speculation since 11th September about the fundamental aims of the vile, brutal and devastating attack on the United States. Was it religious; was it anti-US; was it linked to the Middle East conflict; or was it even a hatred of globalisation—a word that seems to be shorthand for capitalism and wealth creation? We were told this morning that Osama bin Laden said that he had a religious and logical obligation to carry out his actions resulting in, among other things, appalling mass casualties of civilians. I firmly believe that that is absolutely counter to the religion of Islam.
Perhaps we shall never know what his objectives were. However, whatever the reason, it has had the effect of uniting the world, in a way not seen in my lifetime, in its determination that the evil forces behind such action must be apprehended, brought to justice and utterly thwarted in whatever hopes they may have of continuing their violence against humanity. On this level we can feel assured that all the best professional security, military and political minds are single-minded in their objective of rooting out this terrorism. All eyes are focused on getting Osama bin Laden and his appalling Al'Qaeda organisation, and that gives us some reassurance in these most unsure, insecure and worrying times.
While this is happening the economic impact has appeared to be secondary in most people's minds. That is understandable: the visual impact of the horror of 11th September, coupled with the feeling of helplessness that I have described as though we are all suffering with the suffering of our friends, have resulted in introspection and a concentration on religious and metaphysical responses in our troubled minds.
Maybe this response is exactly what was planned because by it we are in danger of neglecting any consideration of the future in terms of how we can continue wealth creation in order to give employment, raise taxes for education, health and social issues, and, indeed, fulfil our humanitarian efforts throughout the world. Are we playing into the hands of the terrorists by neglecting what needs to be done urgently, to get the world economic system back on its feet?
We must try to ensure, in our own individual and collective way, that the very spirit of America—its "can do" attitude—stirs us to look forward. We must make every effort to emulate the Americans in their ways of working hard and looking forward with confidence and stimulating business and trade throughout the world. That would be a fitting memorial to those whose lives were so cruelly ended on 11th September.
I speak in this debate as an active businessperson who, for over 35 years, has been involved in many sectors of industry and commerce in this country, and
130
who is still involved. With specific relevance to the debate today, I declare my interest as a director of British Airways and of Thistle Hotels. Those two companies were—within minutes in the first case and hours in the second—affected logistically and economically in a most fundamental way. In both cases true British grit was on display from the outset and is still hugely obvious to customers. I am very proud to be associated with both companies: and I am determined to do whatever I can to help out in these troubled times. And troubled times they certainly are.
The worldwide aviation story unfolds with increasing grimness every day. Although in the normal course of business, British Airways competes with other airlines in striving to gain market share, produce better service levels and provide more attractive networks than its competitor airlines, it takes no comfort in seeing the demise of long-standing airlines that have served the public very well in opening up the world to leisure travellers and smoothing the operation of world business.
Sadly, I fear that the latest problems of the international air transport industry and their impact in economic terms could be but the beginning. The industry was in a depressed state before 11th September. In this country our problems began on 24th February with the first case of foot and mouth disease being discovered. The domino effect took hold. Tourism suffered and the airline and hotel sectors were badly bit. The acceleration of this problem into a major crisis has been the swiftest change in economic fortune that I have ever seen. Tourists are staying away, hotels are experiencing the lowest levels of occupancy for many years and all the tourist attractions are likely to be affected badly. Since 11th September there has been a reduction in revenue and occupancy in London hotels, amounting to some 25 per cent, compared with the same weeks last year. That is not surprising as visitors from the US account for some 30 per cent of the London tourist market.
It can only be a matter of time before retail spending on all but essential items will also show a significant decline. There is no doubt that consumer confidence has taken a nosedive, not because the consumer does not have the money to spend but because, somehow, their hearts are not in it Until confidence is restored, we are all in for a very difficult time.
There are things that can be done at the macro level; and the Bank of England has already shown that its finger is on the pulse with the almost coincidental reduction in the official interest rate and hopefully another one later today.
But measures to ensure the long-term viability of the tourist industry, which has been so badly hit already this year, are a little more difficult, and it has asked for additional marketing spend to encourage British people to take holidays in Britain. The BTA has estimated that some 70,000 jobs are at risk as a direct result of the terrorist attacks on 11th September.
It is not special pleading on my part to ask the Government to consider actions that will ensure that the global competitiveness of British business is not

131
reduced by the events of 11th September. Doubtless there will be a continuing worldwide decline in air transport and a continuing worldwide falling off in tourism and hotel occupancy while we all work our way through this crisis. However, I believe that it is essential that the "rules of the game" are the same for all involved in world business.
This country punches above its weight in so many areas. We should not forget that we account only for about 1 per cent of the world population. In aviation terms, after the US and Japan, we are the third largest aviation nation. After the US, British airlines carry the second largest number of passengers worldwide. These figures are important, but they are just figures. What is even more important is the contribution made by a company such as British Airways to the overall global impact of our country.
Its global network does an immense amount of work, encouraging trade missions, both inwards and outwards, and linking with our embassies and consulates throughout the world; in fact, doing a great deal for the country, although not state owned.
The impact of the company in the UK is much bigger. British Airways does most of the pilot training in this country; it is heavily involved in the engineering industry; and it spends some £5 billion each year with some 7,000 UK suppliers. The domino effect has already fallen on suppliers. British Airways has instigated a "supplier watch" scheme to try to help those suppliers who are suffering as a result of this crisis.
The company creates employment throughout the UK and is recognised as a huge supporter of charitable causes. British Airways does not cherry-pick network decisions and maintains the largest network throughout the UK to support business and regional communities. To allow British Airways to follow the fate of Swissair would be unthinkable. It will not happen provided that the international competitive structures remain in place. In other words, we just want fairness for all.
This may seem a doom-laden scenario, and there are those who maintain that no fares should ever be above £9.90, including taxes, irrespective of destination. Anyone with half a brain can see that that is not possible. Organisations which act in this way, at a time like this, do nothing for the economy, the country, pilot training or the engineering industry. We know that heightened security measures will be introduced. That will be a huge additional cost for all airlines. Aircraft productivity will be reduced because of the longer times on the ground due to the security measures and therefore there will be fewer flying hours. That will be another huge cost.
It is only fair that there should be even-handedness throughout the world. If governments bail out their airlines, as they are already doing in the United States, those who are left to fend for themselves could well become additional casualties of the terrorist attacks of 11th September. This is an argument for all our industry. We must not allow an external shock to
132
destroy our industry by believing that the market place will sort the matter out. We cannot afford to lose all those years of experience and expertise. We are not asking for huge aid packages. All we need is an assurance that government action worldwide will not kill our variant thriving industry.
The European Union has a role to play in all of this as the guardian of state aid and competition rules. Our Government also have a big role to play through the International Civil Aviation Organisation. If both those organisations are really determined to seek an opportunity arising from a ghastly tragedy they could determine to get rid of all state aid. In the very short term the industry may need help to cover fixed costs while customer confidence is restored.
In ending, I reiterate that we need to take steps to ensure that these evil terrorists do not wound us permanently. We must look forward and ensure that our place in the world is not only at the table of the coalition but also, as described by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, in wealth creation. In that way we can continue to fulfil a role of addressing economic inequalities in the world.
11.58 a.m.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, in opening my first contribution to this House, perhaps I may express my deepest appreciation to all those colleagues and friends who have been so good to me during the few days that I have so far managed to attend. In particular, I should like to single out the Government Chief Whip for his very good advice and support. I am sure that the noble Lord hopes that I shall be as receptive to his advice in the future. I shall do my best.
Perhaps I may explain to the House that I come to this debate as a former member of the Intelligence and Security Committee. That committee was set up by the Major administration of 1993–97 to monitor the intelligence agencies. That excellent committee was able to meet regularly with the heads and senior officials of Britain's intelligence agencies—GCQH, MI5 and MI6—and the heads of agencies in the United States and other European countries. It rapidly dawned on me and other members of the committee that what happened in New York was inevitable. Everything pointed in intelligence terms—I do not breach any law saying what I do—to what happened in New York. Osama bin Laden featured on our agendas. Although I am no longer a member of the committee, having moved from the other place to this House, I feel sure that that will remain the position—in respect of the leaders of violent organisations and agencies—well into the future.
Rogue states will no longer use missile systems to deliver effectively their weapons of mass destruction but surrogate organisations—if only because they know that they cannot be traced. The theory behind such warfare, which came through strongly during our hearings, is that because such states can hide their identity, that is the way to wage war in future. Unless we are careful and if we do not take unpopular decisions and the right action now, there will be further occurrences in the future.

133
Intelligence has moved from the back room to the front of the stage. The arrangements for reporting intelligence to Parliament need to change, with the appointment of a Minister responsible for intelligence and security who reports to both Houses. We are too secretive. Much of the material that came before the ISC could have been published without compromising national security. Anyone who read the committee's annual reports will recognise that is the case. Also, the structure of the ISC should change. At the moment, it is a committee of parliamentarians, not of Parliament. The ISC reports to the Prime Minister, not to Parliament. It would be feasible to establish the structure that has been debated at length in the other place, which would enable reports to be made directly to Parliament without compromising national security.
It is said that the use of national identity cards would have made no difference in the case of New York. What rubbish! One only needs to establish the right structure and a database that is properly monitored and managed—which is not the case with the FBI at the moment in terms of management of materials, as we have learned from recent CIA leaks—in conjunction with national identity cards held by all US or UK citizens and by persons applying for visas at the point of immigration. Such cards might incorporate iris recognition but certainly DNA and fingerprint data and a photograph.
In the case of America, if such identity cards had existed and been submitted at the airport check-in desks, that information could have been flashed to Washington, or wherever the database was held. That would have triggered an alert at the airport where the hijackers boarded the aircraft. Because such a system was not in operation, the authorities were not aware of who was boarding the aircraft. Reliable intelligence leaks published in the British press tell us that the authorities knew some of the hijackers. If an ID card system and a central database had been available, surely that would have impacted on events and those incidents would not have taken place.
Identity cards have a special role to play in dealing with international terrorism and conflict but they have many other benefits, which have been rehearsed many times in recent years in the British media. It is said that one problem with ID cards is that they can be forged. I do not believe that it is possible to forge cards containing all the data I described. It was disturbing to hear the noble Lord, Lord Howell—I hope that I am not misrepresenting his position—reject the idea of national identity cards. I hope that he will reconsider. Many people support their use and I will give the House a personal example of how a national ID card was of particular benefit to me.
In the 1960s, I was a student in Paris during the course of the Algerian conflict involving the OAS and FLN. Every day, the CRS was on the streets of Paris. As foreign students, we felt quite vulnerable. As a young student, I looked a little south European—some might even say, north African. I was thankful for my carte de séjour. It was my hardy shield against the excesses of gendarmes who might have gone further
134
than they normally should have done. I felt reassured by carrying my identity document. The civil libertarians in this country have completely misunderstood the use by minorities of identity documentation, which can be helpful and reassuring. I am only reflecting the comments that one can find in the British press by people from different communities world-wide. Think hard before rejecting identity cards and ponder carefully the arguments about civil liberties.
Finally, I want to say a few words about the origin of the present conflict. I am sure that my remarks will not please everyone. The widening nature of the conflict, which brings in more and more people who may not be activists, goes back to the problems that exist in Israel. We have to sort out Israel. One cannot treat international terrorism in isolation. Someone, somewhere, must—to put it crudely—take Israel by the scruff of the neck, perhaps even fortifying, by the international guarantees that are the arrangements by which Israel exists. We should ensure that the land on the West Bank occupied by the state of Israel is returned to the Palestinians. There will be no resolution of the conflict until that action is taken. The western democracies have to face up to that responsibility. The answer is not to dismiss that argument—as British newspapers have done in recent months—and blame everything else. I hope that Ministers will take that matter into account when they formulate policy.
12.9 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, it is my privilege on behalf of the House to thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for his remarkable maiden speech. We have a new Member of the House whose independence of mind can be in no doubt and who certainly cannot be described as a follower of fashion. The word that has accompanied the noble Lord throughout his career as a parliamentarian is "integrity". We are profoundly grateful for that integrity.
The noble Lord brings many years of experience as a graduate of the Sorbonne, a parliamentarian and someone who has done a great deal to consider and tighten regulations on the conduct of parliamentarians. As we have also heard, he has a very keen eye for detail. I imagine that, in the contributions that we all hope he will be making over many years to the business of the House, we will need to be very much on our toes as he exemplifies and displays that attention to detail which is so important in the complex matters that lie before us. I thank him for his personal courage and for his integrity.
I do not want to rehearse many of the themes that have been well stated by previous speakers. But one of the perils which has come into focus since our last debate in this House is the wider impact of possible military action against Afghanistan on the already unstable situation in central Asia as a whole, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams.

135
I have a special responsibility for relations with eastern orthodox Christians. That is why I have travelled over many years in the former Soviet Union and in the states which have emerged since the fall of Communism. As we all know, the five central Asian states were already attempting to mobilise before 11th September against their own internal terrorist threats. They had even agreed to establish a joint anti-terrorist centre in Bishkek, the capital of Kyrgyzstan. As we have heard, the region is also afflicted by the consequences of the drought, as well as by insurgencies of various kinds.
It seems clear that any coalition action in or from that region needs to be accompanied by long-term efforts to stabilise central Asia politically and economically. Some kind of Marshall Plan for the region is needed. We must be aware—as many noble Lords are aware—of the danger reflected in a recent statement by an Uzbek official, who cautioned that,
"our government will get full support from the West to fight against those our government declares terrorists. Since the West has little understanding or interest in distinguishing between devoted Muslims and extremists or terrorists, all opponents of the government will be easily jailed".
There is clearly a dangerous prospect of greater instability. The danger is that we shall once again unwittingly create a Frankenstein in central Asia.
The importance of supporting any action with a humanitarian relief programme has already, rightly, been stressed. The Scriptures say:
"If your enemy hungers, feed him".
This may be controversial advice in conventional warfare but, as we seek to deny to terrorists the achievement of their aim to spread fear and hatred, it seems to me that it is a strategy that is prudent as well as pious.
But analyses of the conflict which suggest that religion—again, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, touched on this point—is simply a cover for economic discontent and the unequal development caused by globalisation are hangovers from the flatland Marxist interpretation of the world. Osama bin Laden himself does not come from the ranks of the poor and marginalised, nor are his stated aims in his struggles with the US, moderate Arab governments and the Shi'ite regime in Iran reducible to economic grievances. Aid and development may reduce the pool of those who sympathise with terrorists, but it will not solve the problem of what we might call "apocalyptic terrorism", which, like the gas attack on the Japanese underground, arises not from a clash between civilisations—many noble Lords have rightly made this point—or between haves and have nots, but from profound anxiety within civilisations about the direction that secular materialism is taking in our time.
Terrorism cannot possibly be defended from any of the great spiritual traditions of the world, but the religious dimension of the present crisis is not reducible to any other categories. In a world of divergent histories and beliefs it is vital that we reinvest in a long, ancient tradition of genuine tolerance and respect built on genuine though divergent belief.
136
It is easy to point to Muslim civilisations in which this tolerance has been an especial characteristic. Let me give one small example. The great Christian defender of the icon tradition in which Christ and his saints are depicted, St John of Damascus, was free to write his book defending the holy icons at a time when his views were being persecuted in the Christian empire. Why? Because this great Christian saint and scholar was the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the Umayyad Caliph of Damascus. That is how he got away with it.
Faith-based tolerance is a vital component of our response to the present emergency. I was glad to stand together last night with London Muslims in an event organised by the Muslim Council to demonstrate our many common values and to make new allies in combating fear and hate.
My most reverend brother, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, has issued an open invitation to prayer, focused on tomorrow, Friday, 5th October. The invitation is to all Christians, but also to all people of faith. Already the response has been very encouraging—not in terms of great events but of people committing themselves to pray in the workplace and at home for peace, justice and the reconciliation of faiths. To demonstrate that we are fully part of the modern world, the most reverend Primate has opened up a web site, with suggestions and materials, which can be accessed from www.invitationtopraver.org.uk.
Lastly, I wonder whether it would be wise to consider establishing an ad hoc Select Committee of the House to report on the changing nature of global conflict and on strategies for defeating deadly conflict. Such a committee would be able to embrace a multitrack approach and consider the role of religious and cultural factors as well as the more traditional diplomatic, economic and military tools for combating the new threat, and any necessary changes to domestic and international law. I know that your Lordships' House has a tradition of establishing such Select Committees on an ad hoc basis. I remember in particular the success and the great influence of the committee on medical ethics which set the agenda for so many of the debates in the 1990s.
The subject matter would not be the immediate response to the dreadful events of 11th September but the consideration of a longer term strategy for a conflict which, as the noble Baroness has already said, will, I fear, haunt us for a long time to come. We shall have to travel, with cool minds and humility, through to victory for the whole of the world community.
12.18 p.m.
Lord Temple-Morris: My Lords, it is only a few short months ago that I found myself making my swansong speech in the other place. In that speech I thanked that House for putting up with me for 27 years and I thanked the Parliamentary Labour Party, not only for its reception of me—I use these words deliberately—but for giving me three very happy years in the previous Parliament. I also thanked my former

137
party—I cannot and would not put it higher than
this—for its kind toleration (I use that word also deliberately) of my political perambulations.
I should like to begin my participation in your Lordships' House by thanking not only noble Lords of my own party, the Labour Party, but friends in all parts of the House for the kind welcome that they have given me. Obviously I do not feel alone in the concept of perambulating in this House, but obviously one is a little sensitive and I should like to thank everyone in your Lordships' House.
I shall get straight to the point. I appreciate that there are no time limits, but I have to be as brief as I can in my maiden speech. I wish first to deal with the background to these lamentable, horrendous events and then to deal with what we can do about them.
As to the background, I should declare to the House—most of your Lordships know this already—that I have had a very long-standing interest, and indeed participation in many ways, in middle eastern affairs. I have also been happily married for 37 years to an Iranian wife and therefore am perhaps more exposed than many others to many of the matters that we are talking about because of my personal and political interests.
I deal with the background and the causation of the matter. First, we are dealing here undoubtedly with globalisation. We are dealing with a serious imbalance of power. We are dealing with a perceived unstoppability of western values and culture. We are dealing with a fear of change and a resulting fallback on to traditional values and, indeed, reactionary thinking. That is as true of a McDonald's in France as it is of many instances in the Middle East.
Secondly, we are dealing with a perceived quasi-colonial struggle—which, of course, explains the wide extent of the possible lamentable participation in these events from across the world—against perceived western domination. It is no accident that many of the alleged participants in the recent horrors came from Saudi Arabia and the southern Gulf. Undoubtedly, western supported regimes and the security of many of them are important, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, has already said, but the western supported regimes are part of the problem. An example is Saudi Arabia itself and the United States presence in the homeland of the Prophet. Egypt is another example of an authoritarian regime supported by the West and homeland of the Muslim Brotherhood. In Algeria a particularly vicious and nasty war has been waged by the western backed military against the Islamics.
The third part of the causation is undoubtedly the policy of isolating Iran and Iraq. They are different but I take them together here for reasons of time. Constant military strikes on Iraq and complete commercial isolation of Iran and, indeed, Iraq amount to yet another constant source of humiliation for many ordinary Muslims and contribute to the breeding ground of the terrorism that we are increasingly witnessing.
138
Fourthly, there is the running sore—because that is what it is and I speak as a Labour Friend of Israel, as I was a Conservative friend of Israel, in saying this—of Israel and the Palestinian problem. There can be no doubt of the nightly humiliation that many feel in witnessing on their television sets young Arabs being shot by Israeli soldiers. That has to end, as others have already said. What can be done about it all? I make some submissions as one cannot deal with the whole problem. First, on the military side, I do not envisage a big war; indeed, it would be quite dreadful if ever that were to happen. That just incites further trouble and exacerbates the problem. We must realise that every bomb potentially encourages another declaration of jihad and another suicide bomber.
However, on the military side—there is a military side—we need a defined objective. That objective should concentrate on the accepted and perceived sources of these acts of terrorism; that is, the Taliban and, through it, bin Laden. It should comprise such military action and such incursions as are necessary—this is an important point—to enable the locals to do the job. I do not think that we should be seen in any way to settle Afghanistan's fate or to impose any regime upon it. There are people willing to do the job. They need the assistance that we should be prepared to give them. As regards the neighbours of Afghanistan, I say without any doubt at all that if the Taliban is deposed and, indeed, bin Laden is brought to justice—I mention Pakistan and Iran in particular, but it applies to the whole lot of them—they will heave an enormous sigh of relief.
Secondly, I refer to civil anti-terrorist measures. I shall concentrate mainly on foreign policy measures here but civil anti-terrorist measures are absolutely vital. I welcome the firm beginning that the Government are making to attack terrorism from the outside by tackling its finances. Those and other measures are as effective a way of dealing with terrorism as the more dramatic military variety of action.
Thirdly, I deal with straight foreign policy because in dealing with the situation we need a more inclusive and acceptable western—not just American, although it is primarily American—foreign policy. That involves a major United States rethink. As I am sure do other noble Lords, I welcome the signs from this administration and generally in the United States of that rethink happening. They cannot go it alone anymore. They need to sympathise with—I say that with all respect—and understand other cultures and to try to reach out to them. They are a global power but they also have the responsibility to act as such in the interests of those over whom they have power.
Finally, I list areas of action and change which I submit the United States can consider and which are indeed relevant to the West and to the United Kingdom. First and foremost, particularly as regards our American friends and allies, is the matter of Israel. They must dilute their virtual blind support of anything Israel does. In previous administrations—and, I hope, this one—the United States has pressed for a settlement in the region. I see a secure Israel in the

139
future but I do not see an Israel being secure by being dependent upon the tanks of General Sharon. Israel owes it to us and to her supporters in the West to come to the peace table in a more convincing way than she has done in the past year.
The United States must encourage contact with Iran. There are signs that the administration want that—indeed, it is certain that American business wants that contact—but, as your Lordships know, the problem lies with Congress. However, it does no good to isolate the extremists in that country. The sooner there is contact the better it will be for the moderate elements.
The constant bombing of Iraq is a constant negative. If we wanted to end the regime of Saddam Hussein we should have done that in 1991. Ten years comprising a negative rather than a constructive approach have now gone by. I ask the Government to communicate something of that view to our American allies.
Finally, the United States must engage internationally and with Islam. It must engage across the board from environmental policy to sitting in some advanced war headquarters in Saudi Arabia directing constant air strikes on Iraq. It must engage not only as a power and not only with responsibility and understanding but it must also engage as a friend. If it is perceived to be not just a power but also an understanding friend and if that is seen to be the situation by the world at large and by the Islamic world in particular, we shall get the peace that that world, and we all, deserve.
12.28 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, it is my pleasure and privilege, on behalf of the whole House, to thank and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Temple-Morris, on his interesting and informative maiden speech. His sense of individual political conviction and his long and renowned career in politics make him no stranger to the ways of Parliament, but it is clear that he will bring to your Lordships' House much of the value and expertise that he gained in another place over many years. I note from his extensive entry in Who's Who that he was at one time chairman of the Afghanistan Support Committee. He is truly a most informed and important addition to the membership of your Lordships' House; his arrival now is as timely as it is welcome.
Except for those who lost loved ones, the indescribable feeling of shock, of dismay and of horror at the events of 11th September and their immediate aftermath is passing. So, too, is the gut response that something must be done immediately to punish and bring those who are responsible to account. Combined with that gut response are the other ones of concern, even fear, that there is likely to be continuing and continuous acts of comparable terror, or at least the threat of them, facing every country and every airline, and in every major city of the world, not least in London.
140
Spurred by those concerns, political leaders on both sides of the Atlantic have characterised the fight-back to eliminate the scourge of such terrorism, as a war. The media reflected a widely-held view that there was bound to be a major punitive raid or series of raids mounted rapidly, with all the complex sophistication which a modern superpower could command and deliver. Events have proved that reaction, if it was ever seriously considered except by millions of poor, fleeing Afghani refugees, to be false. The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, has also stressed this point. Indeed, until the targets for such action have been found, it is unlikely to take place. Until the combined intelligence resources can bring forward real-time intelligence, ill-directed punitive action would surely be only grossly counter-productive to the longer term strategy, which has also been announced, of a global campaign against international terrorism.
Although we are being encouraged to see this as a war against terrorism, it is obvious that this is not a conventional type of war, where one or more countries or alliances are pitted against another group or group of states. Since the end of the Cold War, much has been written by defence analysts about asymmetric warfare; that is, warfare where a country's opponent is not a straightforward national identity, but a ruthless and determined group of individuals, rebels or organised criminals. Such individuals or criminals are intent on achieving their aims or ambitions by the use of force, extortion and gross acts of terror. The United States and her national allies, including the United Kingdom, form one side of this asymmetric equation.
But it is clear from the complexity and success—in the terrorists' terms—of the four closely co-ordinated and horrifying hijacks, mass murders and serial suicides on 11th September, that the planning and leadership, the utterly calculated conviction and the deadly determination of a considerable number of individuals over a period of weeks and years, is far from asymmetric. There is a degree of symmetry with our own professional abilities: to conceptualise; to plan and prepare; to command and control; and with these essential features of conflict, to achieve a required outcome. We must take that on board.
Consider the efforts required: to plan and achieve four concurrent hijacks, with possibly one or more previous "dry runs" of their actions—at least up to the point of hijacking—to ensure a high assurance of success on the day; to indoctrinate dozens of individuals to contemplate and commit suicide and mass murder; to establish good communications and tactical control; to take account, for example, of changes in flight times, take-off times or the weather—two days after the tragedy, New York was covered with low cloud and rain and no visual attack would have been possible; and to control and perhaps commit or hold off other flights on the day with hijack teams on board. I hope that the authorities are looking into that possibility. Overall, there must have been some master planning and controlling group or cell. There must be leads, not only to those who are now dead terrorist hijackers, but to the other individuals and teams who had a hand in planning, preparing and

141
mounting these dastardly attacks. All this points to the key role to be played by the security forces, police and intelligence services in helping to track down the perpetrators of these murderous crimes.
But the response, if terror is ever to be eliminated, has to be much more widely drawn than a few spectaculars that capture the headlines. First, who is to be labelled a terrorist? We are accustomed to the same individual or group being seen as a "terrorist" from one end of the telescope and as a "freedom fighter" from the other end. If we are to be clear about who is the enemy, and that now seems to include states which sponsor terrorists and terrorism, then it becomes even more critical to be clear about the meaning of "terrorist".
When they slam into the World Trade Centre they pinpoint themselves. But are we going to define a terrorist only because of his or her past successes or near successes? Surely not. The net must be widened to encompass those who pose a threat, but then on what scale? On what scale should national forces, resources and actions be measured and committed against such putative threats? No doubt the Government and the other countries involved with us in this new struggle—or rather a new approach to a long-running struggle—are working on this, not least in NATO after invoking Article 5.
Is there a United Nations-approved definition? That, I fear, will be more difficult to achieve, but there should be a definition. Without it, the demands and contributions which the Armed Forces and others will be called upon to make will not be clear. In the Falklands and Gulf conflicts, a war cabinet was set up. Mention was made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal that COBRA met last night. Is COBRA the equivalent of a war cabinet? If so, who are its members? Is the Chief of the Defence Staff among its membership?
Two key issues arise when armed forces are to be committed. They must never be lost sight of in our determination to respond to the threats we face. One is to ensure that there is a clear and achievable military aim; that is, a measurable aim, measurable in a way that is unambiguous. The other key issue is an exit strategy. In the Gulf conflict, when I was Chief of the Defence Staff, the military aim we were given was to push the Iraqi forces out of Kuwait and so weaken them—in particular the Republican Guards—that there would be little risk of them reoccupying Kuwait when the coalition forces were withdrawn. As CDS, I was happy with that and with the clear indication that when what had been asked for from the Armed Forces had been achieved, there was an exit strategy.
After many weeks in theatre there would be a respectable withdrawal, an end to the massive and unsustainable commitment upon which we had embarked; namely, unsustainable at that level if we were to remain in theatre for many more months and did not resort to the use of force to achieve the military objective, So we also had an exit strategy. Before going in, know how to get out; have an exit strategy. We shall
142
not be welcome indefinitely, certainly not with large forces on the ground in any of the Middle East and Asian trouble spots.
In the deployment and operational use of our Armed Forces, I hope that the Government will be clear, at least in their own mind, about the way to finish the commitment or commitments they have ordered. Their choice will be either a heavy commitment for a short period of time or a more prolonged one, but at a. much lower level of intensity. In their last defence review, the Government have already set a measure of the scale of commitments that our Armed Forces may have to undertake. The Defence Secretary has hinted that, with adjustments to meet the new threats, they will hold to the defence budget. I hope that, in so doing, the Government will not lose sight of the more conventional threats to our country which may still. exist.
But that is not the whole story. Our unit strengths are worryingly poor. We know that many units are not fully manned. This under-manning must place considerable strain on many of the individuals and units on which we may be relying. The Government must not be tempted, in particular if' we are to commit forces to operations over the longer term in any continuous way, further to overstretch those that remain. The early exodus and reluctance to recommit to longer service, which have been symptoms of the recent past, would only be aggravated.
Given the rhetoric, re-emphasised last Tuesday by the Prime Minister in Brighton, about tackling international terrorism not only in our own country but around the world, we must expect our forces to be deployed and operating once more on a global scale. And a global commitment bears its own additional costs in logistic support and training, as well as the costs of the operations themselves. There can, be no case for further cuts in the defence budget.
Indeed, a recognition that cuts have now gone too far would be very welcome. We are facing new commitments. Why do we not have an early announcement of a substantial rise in the resources devoted to intelligence and defence, as has been made already across the Atlantic? That would give our own services and the public the clearest of signals that this Government are in earnest about their determination to bear down on terrorism in all its guises. I hope that we shall learn very soon that the services, on which we always rely so greatly at times of danger, will be given this encouraging signal of their importance in the Government's fight against terrorism. This I-louse and the country are entitled to ask: will this Government do it and do it soon?
12.41 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Temple-Morris, it is my very great pleasure to congratulate him on his highly impressive and persuasive maiden speech. Although having very different political views, he and I have long been friends—indeed, he would say, at one point even conspirators. We know each other well and therefore

143
I was not in any way surprised by the excellence of his speech. I was grateful to him for making at least a few kind comments about his former party. We look forward very much to hearing him again.
I am also grateful for the opportunity to express my support for everything that the Government have said today, for everything that the Minister has said, and for the actions that the Government propose to take against terrorism. In a debate such as this, it is extremely difficult to find the words adequately to express one's horror and revulsion at what happened in New York. As, I am sure, is the case for everyone in this Chamber, I have many friends in New York. I have spoken to them on the telephone. By listening to their voices, one can still hear and sense the shock and horror that they feel. Thus one has been able to participate in their grief. As others have done, I express my admiration for the firemen, the rescuers and the wonderful resilience of the people of the great city of New York, absolutely epitomised, as the Minister said, by the irrepressible Mayor Giuliani.
There can be no justification—I repeat: no justification—of any kind for the type of atrocity that we have witnessed. We must face this as a world together. Our common humanity is confirmed by this tragedy. The citizens of 60 countries were killed. Two hundred Britons died in the attack of 11th September. But, even if they had not, we would still owe it to the world to stand together with the United States because the threat of terrorism is indivisible and we must respond together. There is no third way. Our duty is to root out terrorism and to ensure that those who organise, support and finance it pay such a price that an event such as this will never happen again.
After the attack on the World Trade Centre, some discussion took place in the media as to whether or not it was a day that changed the world. I do not believe that the world changes overnight in that way.
What normally happens is that an event crystallises and makes us perceive a change that has already been taking place gradually. What will be seen as having appeared to change is the balance of power in the world. The one remaining superpower, for all its technological superiority, is revealed as highly vulnerable. It always was, but the fact that that perception is now so widespread is in itself highly dangerous. Other things may change, such as the balance between liberty and the state. The United States' relationship with Israel may also change.
The American reaction to 11th September has been slower in coming than many expected. Contrary to what the critics of the United States suggested, the US Administration has not lashed out. Plainly, a careful strategy is being worked out. If bin Laden's aim was to provoke retaliation against ill-defined and innocent targets, he has failed in that.
The United States has assembled a remarkable coalition of Russia, NATO countries, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Pakistan and Gulf states, as well as acquiescence from China and Iran. That would certainly not have been possible before
144
11th September. Thanks to careful, patient diplomacy, Afghanistan has been almost completely isolated. The United Arab Emirates withdrew its diplomats and cut diplomatic relations on 22nd September. Saudi Arabia cut its relations three days later. Pakistan is the only country which maintains formal relations, and it has withdrawn its diplomats from Kabul.
Of course, the risk, among many others, in the present situation is that the stability of several highly important countries could be threatened. It would be a disaster if that were to happen in Saudi Arabia, as has already been mentioned. The same applies to Egypt or Pakistan. Therefore, our objective must be to ensure that our strategy proceeds in a way which underpins the stability of those countries. We must also maintain the remarkable coalition that has been so carefully built up. Only if we do that can we use the assistance of those countries in hunting down Al'Qaeda and arresting suspected terrorists all over the world.
The US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, said that he does not consider it to be the job of the United States to decide who or what should form the next government of Afghanistan. On the other hand, Mr Wolfowitz said that it is the objective of the United States to destroy terrorist states. Of course, the two statements are not inconsistent. Many people would consider the United States to be well within its rights in removing and destroying the Taliban. I am sure that many people living in Afghanistan who have suffered would be pleased and would welcome the removal of a government who are as vicious, objectionable and reactionary as any in the world.
I applaud very much the announcements made today by the Minister and the Leader of the House regarding the humanitarian aid that rightly is to be given to help the people of Afghanistan. However, I believe that difficulties will ensue if we attempt to become too involved in deciding on the successor regime in Afghanistan. Replacing the Taliban by the Northern Alliance may not turn out to be a great step forward. A broad-based coalition, possibly around the former monarch, including the minority ethnic groups, is a different possibility. But our main concern, in so far as we have one, with regard to who should form the government of Afghanistan must be that they do not endanger or threaten our own security.
The best outcome of the immediate crisis concerning bin Laden would have been for the Afghans to resolve the matter themselves. However, that opportunity, if ever it existed, has almost certainly passed. The suggestion made by the Taliban that bin Laden might leave the country voluntarily was rightly and understandably rejected by the United States Government. But it was probably put forward as an intended concession. It probably also indicates that the Taliban is not a united force and that divisions exist there which could be exploited diplomatically.
Perhaps too much pessimism has been expressed about the difficulties of a military operation in Afghanistan. We have been reminded of history and

145
the fate both of the Soviet Union and the British in the 19th century. Of course, if the United States' aim was to occupy and govern Afghanistan, the pessimism would be well justified. However, I consider that there is every reason to believe that a much more limited operation, with limited objectives, can be successful.
It is not only bin Laden and Al'Qaeda against whom action must be taken. A war must be waged on many fronts and in many places, including within our own country. It may be unwelcome to the Government to have to do so but I believe that they will have to revisit much of their human rights legislation and the emphasis that they have put on human rights in their asylum legislation and that relating to immigration, extradition and surveillance. To take one example in this new dangerous world, it seems perverse to ask Egypt, which is itself very much at risk from terrorism, to co-operate with us in the fight against terrorism but to refuse to hand over to that country those who have been convicted in that country of terrorist offences. Co-operation surely has to be a two-way process. Unless we alter our approach in that context, I doubt whether we will get co-operation.
I applaud the emphasis that the Prime Minister and President Bush have put on the fact that this is not a battle with Islam. That point has been made so often that one fears that one may weary people by repeating it. However, it cannot be said too often. There is a risk that the right words will not be heard and that the wrong words will be picked up. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, referred to President Bush's use of the word, "crusade", which was immediately picked up by bin Laden. Mr Berlusconi's comments about inferior civilisations were not exactly helpful, either, and were probably music to bin Laden's ears. The noble and learned Lord said that those who wrote President Bush's speech did not have an adequate sense of history. I suggest that the same is true of Mr Berlusconi. Even the great city of Venice at one time had to admire the enlightened despotism of the Ottoman Empire. We all know that Islam contributed through Spain to the Renaissance and to our heritage of mathematics and algebra.
Mr bin Laden wants us to believe that Islam is instinctively hostile to the West. However, we must not allow the present situation to become a clash of civilisations; it is not. Many of the Arab states that are most hostile to the West are secular Arab states, such as Iraq, Libya and Syria. Many of the states that are more friendly to us are theocratic, such as Kuwait and the UAE, or fundamentalist, such as Saudi Arabia.
In the aftermath of 11th September, Robert McNamara, the former Defense Secretary under President Kennedy, asked why America is so disliked in the world. Perhaps Americans overstate the hostility to them. It was noticeable that even in Iran there were spontaneous demonstrations of sympathy with the Americans after 11th September. The usual answer that Americans give to Mr McNamara's question is that they are disliked because they are free and rich. I do not believe that Americans are disliked because they are free and rich. Even some of the hijackers seem to have enjoyed wealth and freedom in the United
146
States, and even the Palestinians who applauded the attack on the World Trade Centre probably aspire to American standards of living.
As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said in his excellent maiden speech, there are real political reasons why there is resentment of the United States in the Arab and Muslim worlds. From Morocco to Muscat and from Nigeria to Malaysia there is rage, almost to boiling point, at what has been happening in Israel and on the West Bank. I make it crystal clear that I am not suggesting that there is any link between the Palestinian question and the attack on the World Trade Centre. It has been pointed out several times that Mr bin Laden's attack was probably planned some 20 months or so ago, when hopes of the peace process were much higher than they are today.
But if we want to keep intact this coalition, which has been so painstakingly put together, and if we want to isolate the rogue states and terrorist states, we will have to address the Palestinian question. There is real anger about continuing illegal settlements, for which I believe there is no justification whatever, and about the use of heavy weapons such as F-16s and tanks. Of course Israel has suffered and of course there has been Arab intransigence. Mr Arafat does not know when to say yes. He missed an opportunity when he did not take up plans that were put forward by Mr Barak and which were by far the most reasonable that had ever been put on the table.
Surely we can now see that there is a real need to breathe new life into the Middle East peace process. America has used its influence for the short-term purpose of shoring up its coalition but it needs to use its influence for the longer-term purpose of achieving a real lasting settlement in the Middle East. It was noticeable in the Prime Minister's speech at the Labour Party conference that the longest applause came when he referred to the need to address the grievances of the Palestinians. I applaud the fact that President Bush referred—it is the first time that a Republican president has done so—to the need to have an independent Palestinian state so long as Israel's right to exist is recognised.
I support the Government's position. We are involved in a long haul—the struggle will be very long. There may be times when we think that we have won but we shall discover that we have not. The Government will have to come back to this House, and we shall have to renew our efforts. When we do that, they will have our support again and again.
12.56 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, as part of the modernisation of this House we have been instructed not to pay what once were the usual compliments to maiden speakers. I shall follow that new convention, but I do so reluctantly because our three maiden speakers are all old friends and colleagues. I cannot resist saying to the noble Lord, Lord Temple-Morris, as one perambulator to another, "Welcome to the pram!".

147
I was very tempted to discuss the foreign affairs aspects of the issue. The first 20 years of my working life involved foreign affairs. I am well aware that there is considerable expertise in this House relating to the military, diplomatic and international aspects of the present crisis. That was illustrated by the speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. The problem that Ministers have absorbing all of this wise advice was best summed up in two adjacent articles in the Financial Times of 27th September. One was headed,
"The folly of quick action in Afghanistan".
The other was headed,
"We cannot wait to understand".
Both articles contained sound advice. Obviously one of them will be proved right and the other wrong—history and hindsight will tell us which is which. In the meantime, Ministers have to take decisions.
The sureness of touch and clarity of purpose that the Prime Minister showed in his handling of the foreign policy and defence aspects of the crisis have won respect and confidence at home and abroad. I am sure that we all wish him God speed in his journey today.
I shall concentrate, perhaps in a slightly more critical way, on the home affairs and parliamentary aspects of the crisis. If I have a criticism of the Government's handling, it is the approach to the home front. Two short debates in Parliament during this recess have not fulfilled Parliament's proper role in this regard. The absence of a Statement to Parliament by the Home Secretary was also a fault. I understand the situation but no one from the Home Office will speak in this debate or that in the other place. When Parliament reassembles on 15th October, the Home Secretary should make a Statement to the House about the way in which this matter affects his department and related departments.
Already, we have seen one result of the lack of clarity in this area in the muddle surrounding the possible introduction of identity cards. The fact that the idea surfaced came as no surprise to me. To my certain knowledge, the Home Office has toyed with the idea for the past 30 years, and perhaps longer. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, advanced a spirited argument in favour of identity cards. I suspect that we shall hear one or two arguments to the contrary as the debate rolls out.
Our history is littered with examples of governments responding to a particular crisis by introducing measures that restrict individual freedom and civil liberties without having any real impact on the threat at hand. In response to the outrages of 11th September, there is a natural temptation to rush through authoritarian legislation, even though the Government only recently gave themselves considerable powers via the most recent immigration and terrorism Acts and the surveillance powers contained in the RIP Act. So let us remember at this point that our statute book is not exactly lacking in powers for our security services to do their job. We
148
shall measure any new proposals against the pledge given by the Home Secretary yesterday at the Labour Party conference. He said:
"I do not believe in passing laws just to give the impression we are doing something. The Bills we will put before Parliament will focus on practical measures which will deter and disrupt the work of terrorists in Britain".
It will certainly be the practicality of measures, along with their compatibility with our international obligations, civil liberties and human rights, by which we shall judge these proposals. But until we see the detail, the Government must not assume that such legislation will go through on the nod.
That said, we recognise that those who hate and despise our liberal values are capable of using the very laws and liberties that underpin our society for their own perverted ends. The struggle against well organised, well financed international terrorism cannot be waged with a purist defence of civil liberties. As we have seen in Northern Ireland, there sometimes has to be a trade-off between effective justice and the ideals of civil liberty. But when we come to consider action on the home front, "a proportionate response" is as good a guideline as when considering international action.
It is not only civil liberties that can be misused by the sophisticated terrorist. As we have heard a number of times, not least in the robust Statement repeated by the Leader of the House, one area where action is urgently needed is in the realm of money laundering, which is the lubricant of both international terrorism and organised crime.
Before the recess, while examining the question of money laundering, I visited most of the agencies concerned. My main interest at that time was how it impacted on drugs cartels and the abuses of organised crime. What the various authorities told me convinced me that we are far too lax in our supervision of these matters. It is not simply a question of the need to tighten control on bureaux de change. Banks, law firms, accountancy firms and others have for far too long taken the attitude that they are not private detective agencies and that the source and purpose of various transactions are no business of theirs. That approach is no longer acceptable. Along with a tightening of our laws must go an extension of professional responsibility as well as a far more robust approach to international co-operation in these matters.
Another aspect of domestic security will need careful consideration; namely, civil defence. In August the Cabinet Office published a review document on emergency planning which concluded that,
"the Civil Defence Act 1948 no longer provides an adequate framework for the delivery of emergency planning in England and Wales".
Again, while not demanding an instant response, it is important to know whether the new dimensions of international terrorism are being absorbed into the review that is under way. Are steps in hand to study and learn from the experience of New York in terms of building construction, evacuation plans, the deployment of emergency services, and so on? When

149
do the Government expect legislation to replace the Civil Defence Act 1948? Will it be brought forward earlier in the light of the new circumstances? Will the proposals include new powers relating to attack by chemical or biological weapons? Will there be specific government assistance to help improve in-flight security? Will there be restrictions, temporary or permanent, on the over-flying of parts of London or of sensitive areas such as those around nuclear power stations? Before the noble Lord, Lord Bach, sends messages to his officials, I realise that the issues that I have raised are not for answer in this debate. But this is yet another illustration that there are some big issues, civil defence being one, in relation to which a full and thorough debate in this House would be extremely useful on the basis of an early statement of government intentions. There are other areas of expertise in this House in relation to civil defence matters.
I turn to another matter with slightly more confidence following the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours—namely, the security services. I speak with some trepidation as I realise, looking at the list of speakers, that the noble Baroness, Lady Park, is on the horizon with her guns unmasked. As with draconian laws, so it is with our secret services: there is a temptation at a time of crisis to grant more funding and less accountability. Ministers of all parties are quickly seduced by the glamour of "for your eyes only" briefings. But Parliament must not be excluded from a proper scrutiny of these matters.
I agree with a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. The wider parliamentary scrutiny that he advocated would strengthen, not weaken, the operational effectiveness of the services. In any case, there is surely a need to deal with the lack of co-ordination that has surfaced. As was stated in The Times on 28th September,
"Hindsight underlines blame but clarifies the need for action. In Britain co-ordination between a dozen agencies, including MI5, MI6, GCHQ, Special Branch, Scotland Yard, the National Crime Squad, Customs and Immigration Services needs to be swifter and tighter".
That may be a harsh judgment, but it is essential that we attempt to learn the lessons of 11th September and that we take a long, hard look at the performance and effectiveness of our secret services at that time. I repeat my belief that Parliament should be involved in that scrutiny.
No one underestimates the heavy burden of responsibility that Ministers carry at this time. But there is no doubt in my mind that if their measures hit the target—-if they cut off the life-blood of laundered money; if they prevent abuse of legal processes; if they track and disrupt the activities and movements which enable terrorist attacks to be mounted—then Parliament, reflecting a public will, will vote for the powers and resources to fight and win the battle against terrorism. That fight can be won. My old trade union mentor, Joe Gormley, used to say, "Don't build platforms for malcontents to stand on". As has been illustrated in the debate, in terms of aid policy and
150
crisis resolution, not least in the Middle East, the problem is that the West has allowed platforms to be built on which malcontents are standing.
In the second Financial Times article that I mentioned, Samuel Brittan quoted Gladstone:
"The resources of civilisation are not yet exhausted".
And so they are not. The capacity of liberal democracies to respond to attack with unity of purpose and resolve while retaining the freedoms and civil liberties that mark them out as civilised societies remains our enduring strength. Part of that strength must be the continuing willingness of Parliament to do its duty by scrutinising legislation and calling the executive to account.
Since I started by poking a little gentle fun at the Financial Times, let me give the last word to its editorial of 2nd October. It said about government requests for extended powers:
"A tough test must be applied. Would they really stop a determined terrorist? In the case of the September 11th atrocity, the answer is probably 'no'. Visas could be forged, unmonitored phones found and new money channels arranged. These objections should not be a reason for inaction, but a glance back to the history of the McCarthy witch-hunts of Communists and, more recently, the nefarious activities of the CIA should be a reminder of the need for careful scrutiny of the details. Power corrupts. And an excess of it can be dangerous even at times of pressing need."
I would describe such an approach as constructive scepticism, and that will be our approach when the Government bring forward their proposals.
1.10 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, there can be no doubt that it was right to recall Parliament for a second time after the short period that has elapsed since we were last recalled. The mood of the House today is rather different from what it was then. There was then real and understandable concern that the United States might act too quickly—might lash out, to use the phrase used by the Leader of the House. Happily, that did not happen. There has been time for thought and reflection, and I suspect that we are all extremely relieved about that.
Military intervention in Afghanistan may yet prove necessary. If it does, I personally will have no difficulty on that score. The justification in international law for intervention was clearly spelled out during our previous sitting by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Howe and Lord Mayhew, and the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. It was echoed again this morning by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, in his maiden speech—on which I too congratulate him.
We all accept that self-defence is a proper justification in conventional war. The principle of self-defence must apply equally in disarming terrorists who have declared war on the United States in word as well as in deed and who are currently claiming the protection of a foreign state. I have no difficulty with that. I understand that doubt has been expressed by a distinguished judge, Judge Goldstone, but I have not myself read what he had to say; and until I have not myself read what he had to say; and until I have, I shall say no more.

151
I turn to the legislative response which, of course, was the subject of my report back in 1995. All I need say is that we should all be extremely glad that we now have firmly on the statute book the Terrorism Act 2000, which came into force this March. On that the Government are surely to be congratulated. I add that, in my experience, we now have the best—certainly the most recent—anti-terrorist legislation in the world. It is certainly better than that of the United States. My only concern—to which I shall return later—is whether we are making the fullest possible use of the current provisions before we consider further legislation.
I am especially glad that the Government were persuaded—after a good deal of hesitation, let it be said—to include international terrorist groups among those proscribed under Section 3 of the Act. How foolish we would look today if we were only now taking steps to proscribe Al'Qaeda, but it is at the head of the list of terrorist groups proscribed under Schedule 2 in March.
We are assured that there will be new legislation, and of course we shall consider it carefully when it is placed before us. In my view, it is best to wait to see what legislation is proposed, rather than to anticipate it today. All that I will say is that I have an instinctive dislike—perhaps distrust would be a better word—of legislation that is proposed under the pressure of events. We all remember the tough new measures that were promised after the Omagh bombing. We all remember that those measures—still incorporated in the Terrorism Act 2000, I am sorry to say—have proved almost completely useless. So far as I know, there has not been a single conviction under those measures—certainly not of the Omagh bombers. We all agree that the first and main task is to bring to justice those who instigated and inspired—those are not technical legal terms—the terrible crime that was committed. The actual perpetrators of the crime, let us not forget, have already put themselves beyond the reach of human justice. That point is so obvious that it needs no elaboration. But a second, nagging question is almost as important: could we have done more to prevent that crime? Many people have already said that the events of 11th September changed the world. I fear that that is only half the truth. The truth is that the world had already changed, but we had failed to recognise that.
That brings me to the remarkable speech made at our last sitting by the noble Lord, Lord Owen, in which he said that for 20 years we have failed to do all that we could to prevent the scourge of international terrorism. He was right, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, made much the same point in his maiden speech today. The noble Lord, Lord Owen, accepted some responsibility for that, but it is fair to add that the responsibility lies elsewhere as well. Above all, it lies in the United States itself, which had not woken up—heaven knows, it should have done—to what was on the cards. If there were any doubt about that, it was clearly explained in an article by Andrew Sullivan in last week's Sunday Times.
152
As for us in the United Kingdom, our eye may have been taken off the ball of international terrorism by the scourge of domestic terrorism in Northern Ireland. We may for too long have regarded the spread of communism as the main threat to national security. But whatever the reason, the evidence was there. It was traced in great detail in an annex to my report by Professor Paul Wilkinson of St Andrews University. He points to the growth of international terrorism since the late 1960s which by the late 1970s had become a positive torrent.
Until the 1970s the terrorist groups had political ends in mind. But by the end of the 1970s we were seeing a new form of terrorism, that of the extreme, religious variety. Some also had political aims in mind; for instance, in Algeria and in the Middle East. But some of the religious extremists had no end in mind that we can understand other than the commission of violence for its own sake. Those are chilling words, but they are true.
In 1993 there was a failed attack on the World Trade Centre. I say the attack failed. It caused many casualties but did not actually destroy the building, which is no doubt what was intended. There had already been the hijacking in Marseilles, which was foiled at the last moment and which, if it had not been foiled, would have resulted in huge destruction in Paris.
There was already an ample supply of terrorists who were prepared to sacrifice themselves in carrying out their purposes. The World Trade Centre was such an obvious target. I do not know whether Professor Wilkinson foresaw what happened, but in an article he wrote in June of this year he came very near to doing so. The evidence was there. The writing was on the wall. We just did not take it in.
What can we do now? Of course we must improve our airport security. Of course we must improve security on the flight deck. But things of that kind smack rather of Mrs Partington. I cannot believe that the new brand of terrorist will be deterred by such measures—I do not say we should not take them—or that they will be put off for want of an identity card. It is not the world in which they live. It was suggested on the last occasion by the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, that we need a new convention. I have to say to the noble Lord that we have had 12 conventions since 1963, the most recent being in 1997 and 1999, one dealing with terrorist bombing and, surprise surprise, the other dealing with terrorist finance. When one is dealing with fanatics who believe that they are divinely inspired and morally justified in doing what they have to do, and are prepared to destroy themselves in the process of carrying out those tasks; when one is dealing with what the right reverend Prelate called "apocalyptic terrorists", it is difficult to believe that another convention will deter them.
What can we do? We can do only one thing; that is, use the intelligence services. We need more intelligence, better intelligence and intelligence on an entirely different level. We need intelligence of the kind for which we would be looking if we were engaged in

153
a conventional war. That brings me to another remarkable speech which was made on the last occasion, that of the noble Baroness, Lady Park. I am glad to see that she will speak again today. I was surprised and disappointed that nobody took up her point until, at the end of the day, it was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Roper. We need people who are able to infiltrate the terrorist movements to find out who they are and what they have in mind. We need more brave men and women. The personal risks are huge and of course there is no public recognition of any kind. We need human intelligence, not signals intelligence.
If I had been asked on 12th September what we can do to reassure, comfort and support the United States, I would have said we need to double or even treble the sums we spend on the security services. That is where the solution lies. The Government have already said that there is to be some increase. I cannot recall what the figure was, but I suspect it will be peanuts in comparison to what is really needed.
I have said enough but should like to leave the Minister with a few questions. We read that the FBI has already issued or procured the issuing of a number of provisional warrants for the arrest of subjects in the United Kingdom. I should like to know how many arrests there have been or how many are anticipated. It may be difficult to answer that. But one would also like to know why those arrests are only being made now and were not made before the events of 11th September.
Section 41 of the Terrorism Act, which the Minister knows well, contains "draconian"—I dislike that word but cannot think of any other—provisions which enable us to arrest and question terrorist suspects. Those provisions go to the verge of what is permissible under the Human Rights Act and maybe even beyond, though I should perhaps not say that. To what extent have those provisions been used in the past five years? In my report I set out the figures for the 10 years from 1986 to 1995. May we have the figures from 1995 to 2001? I imagine they are available. I should not think there is a security problem in giving that information.
Can the Minister say to what extent any arrest which would otherwise have been made, has not been made because of our rule that evidence obtained by telephone intercept is not allowed in court? Again, I do not want names, but the numbers would be of great interest to the House. If we can have that information, it will do much to reassure the House that all that possibly can be done under our existing legislation is being done before we look at any new legislation.
1.29 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, as the first speaker from these Benches following the admirable and remarkable maiden speeches of my three new noble friends, may I say how very much we welcome them to our ranks and look forward to hearing from them in the future? I shall say a little more about the speech of my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours in the course of my remarks. I shall concentrate on the
154
domestic security measures for which the Government will seek the approval of Parliament in the next few weeks.
In the debate on 14th September, I raised the issue of airline and airport security and drew attention to the need for greater international supervision of security arrangements at airports abroad. Yesterday's figures from British Airways and the plight of Swissair show the collapse in passenger confidence in air travel since 11th September. It will take some time for the public's faith in flying to be restored. A major international effort will be required to tighten up security and to reduce the risk of hijack.
Measures have already been taken in the United States to increase cabin security, with plans to make cockpit doors bullet-proof and to appoint air marshals in the passenger area. I suspect that we may need to look at similar arrangements for European and domestic flights. Such security enhancements should not require legislation and I hope that they can be proceeded with as rapidly as possible.
However, we shall have some very important proposals presented to us, as we have already heard today. The promised all-party support for the Bills to tackle asylum abuse, to speed up the extradition of suspects wanted abroad, to strengthen the law on racial and religious hatred and to tackle money laundering is welcome. I listened to the Home Secretary on "The World at One" yesterday. His proposals for clarifying the arrangements for economic migrants and the introduction of new work permits, the treatment of asylum seekers and the extension of the racial incitement laws to cover religious hatred and discrimination all sounded humane and very sensible. I wish him and the Government well in introducing them, particularly if, at the same time, they are able to abolish the humiliating voucher scheme for asylum seekers.
I hope that we can be reassured that in their determination to speed up extradition procedures, Ministers will carefully consider the human rights standards in the legal systems of the countries to which people may be sent and that they will seek absolute commitments that the persons extradited will not face the death penalty there.
There will also be widespread support for the measures that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced to tackle money laundering and to seize terrorist assets that pass through the European banking system to finance fresh operations, about which the noble Lord, Lord McNally, spoke. At the heart of that process are the bureaux de change. The Treasury estimates that between £3 billion and £4 billion a year leaves this country through that route and that 65 per cent of the money has been acquired illegally. Much of it comes through the drugs trade. With Afghanistan supplying perhaps 75 per cent of the world's heroin and as much as 90 per cent of the heroin on sale on the streets of this country, and Osama bin Laden's involvement in drug trafficking being proved as almost total, the relevance of that measure in the context of tackling terrorism is obvious.

155
The United Kingdom is unique in the European Union in not regulating bureaux de change. Since 1979, when exchange controls were abolished, anyone has been able to set one up and operate without a licence. The National Criminal Intelligence Service was quoted in the Financial Times last week as saying:
"The role of these organisations in criminal activity and terrorism has been recognised for a long time. It is just very easy to move money through them."
A typical transaction is to take a bundle of dirty £5 and £10 notes—perhaps the proceeds of a shop robbery or some drug dealing on the streets—to a bureau de change and change them into high value foreign currency. With the 500 euro note becoming available in January—that is £310 in our present money—the scope for that trade will widen further and the trail will lead back to the drug traffickers. Of course, the bureaux are supposed to look out for dodgy transactions and report them, but they are not likely to do that if they are part of the racket themselves. Only the legitimate bureaux put in reports.
The Performance and Innovation Unit of the Cabinet Office produced a report in June 2000 entitled Recovering the Proceeds of Crime. The chapter dealing with tightening the regime on money laundering recommended the introduction of a licensing system for bureaux de change, money transmitters and cheque cashers. The sooner a proper licensing system and regulation by the Financial Services Authority are applied to bureaux de change, the better. That would make breaches of the 1993 money laundering regulations easier to prosecute and would raise the number of suspicious transaction reports made to NCIS. The FSA tells me that it supports the introduction of a regulatory regime for such money service businesses to improve compliance with the criminal law.
Finally, I turn to an issue that has attracted a lot of public and media attention in the weeks since 11th September—identity cards. There has perhaps been rather too much heat and not enough light on the issue. The debate was started most recently by the Home Secretary in an interview with the BBC on 23rd September, when he said that the Government were considering their introduction,
"in the context of entitlement to citizenship".
He specifically did not say that he saw a huge role for ID cards in the fight against terrorism, nor did he give any impression that they would form part of a range of immediate internal security measures following the events of 11th September. Despite that, his comment generated an extraordinary amount of interest. The News of the World published a MORI opinion poll that claimed that 86 per cent of British people supported the introduction of identity cards to help the police to fight crime. Seventy seven per cent said that cards would help to identify illegal immigrants and 60 per cent said that they would help to fight terrorism.
156
Civil liberty groups were outraged. Liberty and Charter 88 launched a cross-party campaign to block ID cards and enlisted various political luminaries and trade union leaders, plus some prominent members of the Muslim community to oppose them. There was also a lot of press comment, with prominent journalists coming down on one side or the other with lots of anecdotes about what happened when they were compulsory in wartime and post-war Britain and how they came to be abolished in 1952.
On 26th September, David Blunkett said that he would not make a snap decision and it became obvious that their introduction would not be included in any legislation that we shall be asked to consider in the next few weeks as a response to the terrorist attacks.
So what are we to make of all this? We should take these various expressions of opinion at face value and recognise that we shall not have an emergency Bill to introduce identity cards immediately as an antiterrorist measure. As my noble friend Lord Rooker said at a fringe meeting in Brighton on Monday, reported by the BBC, if they are introduced it will not be a criminal offence not to carry one and the police will not be given the power to stop people in the street and demand to see an ID card. There is no reason why they should be used in a discriminatory way against any section of the community that is legally entitled to live and work in this country. If we followed the practice in France, it would not even be compulsory for each citizen to possess an identity card. There the cards are a useful, but not essential, feature of the state system. Students taking national exams in French secondary schools and those taking university exams are required to produce their card. They are also used to validate identity when people go to vote and to prove who someone is if they are arrested.
Is there not a huge civil liberties issue here? I no longer think so. When I was brought up, in the 1950s, the identity card was seen by my parents in the same light as the ration book and the clothing and food coupons—necessary measures in war time but things to be got rid of when normality returned. There was also a feeling that identity cards were un-British and part of a continental culture in which police officers could regularly stop people and demand to see their papers—shades of films that we used to see in post-war British cinema, I suspect.
All that is light years away from today's world of plastic credit cards, bank cards, membership cards for the gym or tennis club, supermarket loyalty cards, rail cards, bus passes, frequent traveller air cards and now even a photofit driving licence the size of a credit card. When people arrive at work many have to insert a card into a machine to get admitted. It records who they are and it will often bring up a photograph on a security monitor. It will keep a record of when they entered and left the building. Noble Lords have something rather similar to that to gain admittance to this building and to their offices outside.
So is it not time to recognise that this debate has moved on? Would it not be sensible to look at how modern smart card technology can produce an ID

157
system which is genuinely useful with a card which can instal palm prints, fingerprints, eye retina patterns and photographs and images of a huge range of personal data including blood group, medical history, medication records, organ donor preferences and so on. It would be possible to separate the data and provide access by a series of different codes with the individual choosing how much to put on it.
If there is a healthy relationship between the citizen and the police there is no reason why the voluntary carrying of an indentity card should turn us into a police state. The scale of alienation among ethnic minorities towards the police will not depend on whether there is an ID card system in place. If there is a problem of mistrust it has to be dealt with, but that is not an ID card issue. However, the economic migrants who are encouraged to come here and work and to whom the Home Secretary promised a new deal yesterday could feel just that much more secure with an official ID card showing who they are and confirming their entitlement to be here and to live and work equally with everyone else.
In preparing for this debate I looked at Hansard for earlier occasions when identity cards were discussed. Your Lordships are nothing if not consistent on this issue. Almost every year since the early 1990s there has been a debate on an Unstarred Question and a regular flow of Starred Questions. The current prize for consistency and determination on this issue goes to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, who has asked two Starred Questions already this year and one last year. In the other place the most persistent campaigner, until the June election, was the Member for Workington, now happily with us in this House and making his maiden speech very largely on this subject today.
Identity cards will not stop all terrorists. They will not eliminate all crime. They may not make much difference to illegal immigration. They will not completely wipe out benefit fraud. But they might make all of those things just a little bit harder. For those reasons I am prepared to admit that I have changed my mind about ID cards and I am prepared to support their introduction.
1.42 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I have never been one to refuse a challenge from the noble Lord, Lord McNally. However, I am delighted to be able to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, to this House because I know that he will be able to confirm the fairly well-known fact, although apparently not to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that the security services are fully accountable and that they work to an agenda set for them by government. Curiously enough, agents about to put their lives in danger have an astonishing preference for working for a service which is going to protect their integrity and privacy and indeed their very existence. I am deeply grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, for saying those things much better than I
158
could. I have always greatly admired his reports on Northern Ireland for their integrity and clear-sightedness. He has demonstrated that once again.
On 14th September the Prime Minister said that we have to understand the nature of the enemy and act accordingly, and to look at the links between terror and crime, adding that this form of terror knows no mercy, no pity, and no boundary. He said also that the most basic liberty of all is the right of ordinary citizens to go about their business free from fear or terror. He could have been speaking of Northern Ireland and the IRA or of the other exercise in terror and intimidation being conducted by Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe under the benevolent eye of his friend, Qaddafi, also the friend of the IRA. But he was not. He was speaking of another group of terrorists.
In turning away to the new threat we are now rightly addressing, I beg that we do not forget that precisely because terror is international, Sinn Fein/IRA is not a petty domestic nuisance; it is a professional and dangerous organisation. Sinn Fein's recent conference was attended by ETA, the Basque terrorist group. PIRA contacts with terrorists in Colombia were taking place recently at the very moment of Sinn Fein's latest sanctimonious claim to be pondering about how to decommission, though never when. The IRA has recently been in touch with a terrorist group in Turkey and it is still no doubt importing new arms from Bosnia and other quarters. Its operations are financed by hijacking, drug dealing and extortion from victims within its own community.
The RUC's Special Branch contribution to the intelligence we all need on international terrorism remains essential and yet, as well as being amalgamated with the CID, it has already lost this year, as part of the new plans for policing Northern Ireland, 10 per cent of its officers. It was due last month to lose 50 per cent of the branch including its skilled support units. Yet even the Patten report concluded that the police service must remain equipped to check and deal with terrorist activity and the Belfast agreement provides that whatever changes are made must be consistent with the level of threat.
I urge the Government to consider the consequences of the drastic cuts in Special Branch on our level of protection against terrorism. The RUC itself has already lost over 1,000 experienced officers in order to make way for green recruits so that more Catholics may, in theory, enter the force. Are the Government still considering Sinn Fein/IRA's demand that the paramilitaries released from prison under the agreement should be eligible to be members of the new police service, including the district policing partnership? To do so would flout the recommendations of the independent commission on policing and the Patten report published only in August, which confirms the Patten report's own strong statement that it
"emphatically did not consider that people with serious criminal or terrorist backgrounds should be considered for police service"

159
Concession after concession has been made to Sinn Fein/IRA on policing. The RUC is one of its main targets for destruction. It has refused to join the police board; it has refused to tell catholics that they may join and, in Gerry Adams' own contemptuous phrase,
"If they join we shall treat them as we have always treated the RUC".
That is Sinn Fein/IRA-speak for "We shall kill them as we have always killed the police".
For the first time our Government, who are evidently prepared to take many drastic and courageous actions in the fight against terrorism, are in a position to make demands on the IRA and not concessions to them. In the new climate Sinn Fein/IRA dare not risk its future relationship with the United States. It is probably in some trouble with its own government in Dublin. It is in serious trouble with the Americans who are, I greatly hope, putting IRA fundraising on its blacklist. It cannot afford to attack the RUC because it cannot afford to be seen to be the only obstacle in the peace process, either on decommissioning or on making the new police force effective.
When the RUC and the Garda, despite all the special terrorist legislation which we passed at the time, as the noble and learned Lord also observed, could not bring the known perpetators of the Omagh murders to court because no witness dared testify. Gerry Adams was asked to tell them that they were free to co-operate without fear of reprisal. He refused because he
"did not recognise British justice".
He was then a Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive, by the will of the people a part of the United Kingdom. However, he had no trouble in recognising the Bloody Sunday inquiry, which has cost £40 million to date. There will never be a better opportunity to put the blame for the failure of the peace process where it belongs. We must insist, when it comes to decommissioning—should there be any—that any fresh so-called inspection should be conducted by the two serving officers available, as required under the mandate of the commission, from the Canadian armed forces and the US Army, both experts on arms, explosives and explosive ordnance disposal. The duty of inspection or verification should be conducted by trained observers, not by two elderly and purblind politicians. The age of some of the weapons handed in in Macedonia recently in Operation Task Force Harvest, suggests that this would be only a sensible provision.
On the one hand we have an intransigent movement which, despite gaining amazing dividends from exploiting the peace process, voted at the Sinn Fein rally last week not even to put any arms beyond use by concreting them over, let alone handing them in. On the other hand, the people of the Republic of Ireland, in a current opinion poll, voted to equate Omagh with New York for horror (70 per cent of the poll). Eighty-five per cent of the poll voted that the IRA should decommission.
160
The SDLP, not Sinn Fein/IRA, now represents Catholic feeling in Northern Ireland and it has come on board on the police issue. The SDLP has no guns under the table. Sinn Fein/IRA should be ignored. The Government have shown courage and energy in reacting to the international threat. I greatly respect that. Let them now treat Sinn Fein/IRA as the irrelevant dinosaur that it now is politically, except in two important respects. It is still a threat as a terrorist organisation, as are the loyalist paramilitaries. Even jackals have nasty bites. Both have been allowed for too long to make the lives of their own communities dangerous, life-threatening and hateful. They should be pursued as the criminals that they too often are.
I turn briefly to another continent and another manifestation of terrorism—the terrible situation in Zimbabwe. I am encouraged to do so because of the Prime Minister's very positive references to Africa. My feeling is that as a country, we need to commit ourselves to doing some positive and immediate good for the poor and the persecuted, as well as attacking the evil men of violence.
Mugabe is such a man. The cancellation of the Commonwealth Conference, which I deeply regret, for it would have spoken for 54 nations, is enabling him to renege—as we always knew he would—on the Abuja agreement, without being called to account. If it is true that he is not only allowing the violence to continue, but refuses to let the International Red Cross go in to feed and shelter the thousands of refugees from the farms in the terrible plight to which he has reduced them—his own people—it must surely be our aim, through the African countries, to force the Zimbabwe Government to restore and maintain law and order. Destabilisation of the whole of southern Africa, as well as the Congo and surrounding states, is staring us in the face. That is as important and dangerous as destabilisation elsewhere. Daunting tasks face us and are a great strain on our limited resources, both human and material.
We should not dissipate our efforts too much, of course, but this terrible crisis has a positive side too. It puts Sinn Fein/IRA's political status into perspective and on the defensive. In Africa, the human tragedy could offer the Commonwealth, which has been hitherto so supine, a unique opportunity to be a positive force for good and to play its part in the battle for human rights. The Commonwealth must justify its existence.
We shall yet again commit our peerless Armed Forces. It is time for others, from the EU and the Commonwealth to the UN, to make their contribution to humanitarian aid at least. I do not believe that we can do everything at once, yet we need a Marshall Plan to be set up now, rather than wait for the outcome of what could be a long and difficult campaign. I hope that we shall ensure that there are generous defence resources to match the need of the Armed Forces and the intelligence services. We need them all and they must be accorded the importance and priority that they deserve, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, said. They will be our most significant contribution to the struggle. This is no longer the time

161
to speak of refocusing the defence budget. The Treasury termites must not be allowed to eat away at the fabric of our defences.
1.53 p.m.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Park, speak, not least because we share past experiences. I share some, but am bound to say not all, of her conclusions from those joint experiences.
I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and am a little surprised that the talking is still going on. I am encouraged in parts, but perhaps a little worried, too, that it may mean that the coalition is not quite as strong in all corners as we might have been led to believe. We all understand that shortly we shall be forced to turn to the grim prospect of sterner measures, and it is to some of those that I shall direct my brief speech today.
I shall not speculate on military action, which is at best folly, and at worst dangerous. I recall when I fought in the little wars of the 1960s and 1970s in the Far and Middle East that we used to have a phrase, "Big thumbs on little maps; that's the way to kill the chaps." I regret our propensity for armchair generalships from safe studios and armchairs a long way from where the action will take place.
Nevertheless, at least some of the broad aims of the action that we might have to take are now fairly clear. The first is to do whatever is necessary and reasonable—I underline the latter—to take action that will assuage the pain of the United States. We should not be surprised at military action being taken for a political purpose, as it has happened before. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, said that it may be necessary to have some kind of firework display. Empty buildings and long deserted camps will be appearing on CNN screens, but provided that it is done proportionately, that there are few or, hopefully, no civilian casualties and that there is good justice, I suspect the fact that it will have little or no military purpose is not something that we should cavil too much about if it gives the leadership of the United States the political room to conduct the longer campaign. It is crucial that if that has to happen, it is specific or limited enough to comply with our second aim, which is to hold together the international coalition at least at its core elements, which is undoubtedly our most valuable asset in tackling this issue.
Thirdly, what shall we do in or with Afghanistan? It would not be right to exclude any form of action. It is unwise to tell a potential enemy what we shall not do. We made that mistake with Milosevic, so we should not repeat it in Afghanistan. There are certain important issues to bear in mind.
One of the themes of my speech today is the importance of history and understanding it with regard to Afghanistan. Whatever range of actions we wish to take, the primary action should be to work on the fissures and to open up the divisions in Afghanistan, rather than act to coagulate those disparate forces, which for more than 200 years have
162
fought an almost constant civil war among themselves when they have not been united against an external enemy. We should not be helping them to unite. There is an Afghan—indeed, Pushtun—phrase which states, "Brother fights brother; brother and brother fight cousin; but brothers and cousins fight together against the world if it comes knocking at your door determined to break it down and enter your house". The British have learnt the wisdom of that phrase with some pain, to which I shall refer later, as have the Russians. History is important in Afghanistan and it needs to be understood.
Our primary weight of action ought to be something simple—to help the Afghans themselves to clean up their own country. That would be the primary purpose of what we might seek to do. In order to do that, we have almost an embarrass de richesse—too many opportunities, some of which also carry dangers. There are many in Afghanistan who oppose the Taliban with force. There are two or three thousand under Ismail Khan in the area of the great city of Herat; there are 50,000 Shia in the Bamian areas; and General Abdul Dostan has about 7,000 Uzbeks. General Dostan's position has been much enhanced in the past by changing sides almost as often as we might change our shirts. He may have different alliances every day, but his aim is always the same—to preserve the Uzbeks from the domination of either the Tajiks in the north or the Pushtun in the south.
There is also the main body of the Northern Alliance under General Fahim, perhaps 15,000 people who now hold territory to within mortar range of Ka bull itself. The temptation is to throw our weight entirely behind these forces, but that would be an error. If at this stage we simply help to rearrange the polarity in Kabul from being Pushtun dominated to Tajik dominated, we shall be incorporating in the peace that comes after that the ingredients of the continuing civil war that has been its cause.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked about the kind of government. If it is either a uniquely Tajik government, or uniquely Pushtun, as it is currently under the Taliban, that will be a disaster for the kind of settled peaceful Afghanistan that we wish to see.
It is very important that we do not pick up the temptation simply to support the Northern Alliance; we must be even handed. Indeed, it would be a disaster if, when the Taliban falls, which I believe it will as fissures are already showing, the Northern Alliance were to take its opportunity and capture Kabul. We must be careful about that danger. In my view, even-handedness in our work with the Afghans in the project of cleaning up Afghanistan is very important. In that respect, the key lies in the tribes south of Kabul; between Kabul and the Afghan borders. They are known as the kingmakers. The tribes which lie between the Kunar Valley, Jalalabad, Gandalak and the borders of Kabul have made the kings in Kabul.
At about this time of year in 1842 my great grandmother set off from Peshawar marching to join her husband in Kabul, little knowing that she was walking straight into what we now know as the first

163
Afghan war. She was among a tiny handful who returned to India with her life when 16,000 were killed in the subsequent events. I tell that story not because she is related to me but because of the important fact that the punitive expedition—they were allowed to use such words in Victorian days—for that atrocity did not take place until 36 years later. And we talk about strategic patience! Although we know of the victories of Lord Roberts of Kandahar—he took Kandahar as his name in this place—the reality is that those victories were achieved only as a result of the long patient work of the then Viceroy of India, Lord Lytton, to put together precisely those diplomatic arrangements in precisely those tribes to whom we now look to remove the Taliban. I believe that as we speak they are beginning to come together and that fissures are growing which will help in that process. That is where we should direct our aim and efforts.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked what kind of government we should have and that was reflected by my noble friend Lady Williams. For reasons which I have explained, I hope that it will not be dominated by either of the two groups. It must be representative of the various ethnic groups which make up the warring state which we call Afghanistan; the Pushtuns, the Tajiks, the Uzbeks and the Hazara who are the leftovers of Genghis Khan's Mongol hoards. I believe that sensibly directed that can be done. It happened in the past and it can happen again. I believe that the king will have a part to play in that but he must be invited in. He has a titular role to play. I suspect that the Loya Jerga will meet and may well call for him to come forward. That will be a useful outcome.
However, as my noble friend Lady Williams rightly asked, is that the end of the matter? I do not believe that it should be. The preservation of the neutrality of Afghanistan is vitally important for two reasons. One is a matter of principle to me and the other is a matter of real politics. It has been a convention, I hope soon to become a practice, of international intervention in recent years that when a coalition of the willing comes together to enforce international law the result is always invested in the United Nations afterwards. It happened untidily in the case of Iraq; it happened tentatively in the case of Bosnia; and it happened much more precisely in the cases of Kosovo and East Timor. It is right that if we have to take this action the result will be invested in the United Nations. That gives it a role to play, it reduces the sense of hegemony with which that might be regarded by people who are not involved, and, above all, it strengthens the United Nations itself. It will not be easy. I cannot imagine many people wanting to put troops into Afghanistan and I cannot imagine it being easy to explain to Afghanis why they should be there in order to support a UN protectorate. We may have to find other ways of doing that. However, it seems to me important that we should.
The other reason is the realpolitik. It would be mad if we were to underestimate Russia's deep sense of neuralgia about the status of Afghanistan. Again, history comes into play. Looking at the Soviet/Afghan
164
war and our response to it, it is easy to see it as a replay of the attitudes of the great game of the 19th century—on both sides. In my view, it would be a disaster if the end of Afghanistan as perceived from Moscow was that we had done in Afghanistan what we previously did in its territory of the Balkans—that is, move into its area of influence and take it over—and if what came about in Afghanistan at the end of the day was not a neutral Afghanistan under the United Nations but a replay by the West of the British forward policy of the 19th century.
That is why I believe my noble friend Lady Williams makes an important point in asking whether the UN has a role to play in ensuring neutrality in Afghanistan and in ensuring that we boost the activities of the UN in any final solution reached on this occasion by the coalition of the willing, which includes, I hope, many in Afghanistan.
My final brief point is this: for God sake, at this time let us not forget the cause of the ordinary people of Afghanistan. This is not of their making. They are not responsible for the Taliban. The Taliban have been visited upon them by Pakistan, largely encouraged by ourselves. The ordinary Afghani is not a fundamentalist. Afghanis wear their Islam religion very lightly. The practice of the Taliban will be as alien and distasteful to them as I suspect it is to many of us. Above all, they are not responsible for this infection of Arab terrorism they now find in their midst which brings upon them the wrath of the most powerful of the world on their shattered houses and their barren fields.
They are not responsible for this; if anyone is, we are. In operating the principle during the Soviet/ Afghan war we said, "My enemy's enemy is my friend" and we helped Osama bin Laden to get himself established. It is not just a means of getting rid of the causes of fundamentalism, poverty and destitution—these people have been wrecked by 30 years of war. That is why, marching hand in hand with whomever we must reluctantly walk on the military front, there must also be a major programme of aid and reconstruction. We must give back to these people decent lives so that they can live in a civilised manner and, we hope, in a peaceful state.
It is history again. Exactly at the time when the punitive expedition was being sent in to avenge the deaths which my great grandmother witnessed and from which she escaped, Gladstone had the courage to stand up in his Mid Lothian campaign in a general election. While Lord Roberts was going into Kandahar he uttered words which ought to reflect down the ages and echo in our ears today. He said,
"Do not forget that the sanctity of life in the hill villages of Afghanistan among the winter snows is no less inviolate to the eye of Almighty God as can be your own. Do not forget that He made you brothers in the same flesh and blood, bound you by the laws of mutual love".
That law is not limited by the shores of this island or the boundaries of Christendom but it passes across the whole surface of the earth, encompassing the greatest

165
along with the meanest in its unmeasured scope. History is important in Afghanistan and we should learn from it.
2.8 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bradford: My Lords, I speak as one who is a Christian by conviction and who day by day consistently works for the wellbeing of Muslim, Hindu, Sikh and Jewish communities within my diocese. As such, I want to record my admiration for the Prime Minister's repeated insistence that the horrors of 11th September and the loathsome nature of the Taliban are not a proper expression of Islam. His lead is welcome, as is the cultural change in the British media where Islam is beginning to be presented in a more nuanced and informed way, avoiding some of the old inaccurate stereotypes.
I want to commend the Prime Minister's insistence that the atrocities in the United States have made it more urgent than ever to develop a debate between religions as well as between nations. Although our debate today understandably has a strong emphasis on Christian and Muslim religions, it is important for us to put on the record the place of the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Jews and people of other faiths and of no faith at all in this respect. I commend the Government's willingness to address incitement to religious hate. It is far more than legislation for good manners, as some would appear to see it, and it will be extremely welcome in cities such as Bradford. I believe that all these measures will reassure British Muslims and enable them to support the Prime Minister's considered measures against terrorism. I hope that his courageous stand will encourage General Musharraf to reassure Pakistani Christians in that country that they will not be the victims and targets of anti-western and anti-American sentiment. They are vulnerable and fearful, and we should not forget them.
I note with interest that the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, is to speak next. I refer to his report which was prepared before, but published after, riots in Bradford earlier this summer. The noble Lord rightly pointed to a worrying situation of polarisation across Muslim and non-Muslim communities which is exacerbated by ill thought out educational and housing policies. Whatever the complex causes may be, there is segregation and suspicion. The reality is that we have large Muslim quarters. In 1991 there were some 50,000 Muslims in Bradford; by 2020 it is anticipated that there will be at least 150,000. That is a considerable size of people whose well-being and contribution to the whole community are absolutely crucial. Most come from south Asia. That raises a critical question—the extent to which such large Muslim quarters will have open doors and windows to wider society, or whether they will become relatively closed worlds. I believe that the answer to that question is completely tied up with the major issues we are debating today.
I wish to speak with candour, honesty and compassion. We are already working hard. We must continue to work hard to prevent sections of our cities from becoming relatively closed worlds. If that
166
happens, the potential for closed minds and blinkered vision linked to an often unthinking anti-western and anti-US sentiment evident in some popular Muslim writings, fed by alternative Muslim sources of information and comment, and facilitated by global media networks, could translate into a breeding ground for youth disaffection and even extremism.
I have no idea whatever—perhaps the Government do—whether any young people in this country have been to Afghanistan or elsewhere for a spell in one of the training camps. It may be that none has. However, it is not beyond the bounds, at least of imagination and possibility. If one is a young person in Bradford, one may be one of those who pays little attention to the elders and their wisdom and to the true teaching of Islam, and one may be gullible, as some of those in the riots were. It was a waste of time when I tried to reason with some. All they came out with were slogans of abuse against the police and anyone else they could think of. It is precisely those people who grow up in what they regard as a "victim culture", who do not listen or think, who present the problem; it is not the Muslims of Bradford at large, who have roundly condemned the atrocities and who are concerned with building up good relations.
That kind of segregation must not happen. The report of the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, questioned the wisdom of importing large numbers of imams from south Asia. The noble Lord also pointed to the city's problems with arranged marriages. Over half of the arranged marriages are still transcontinental; the majority from rural areas. It is a matter of some urgency, for the well-being of all people. for the Government to open up a serious dialogue with Muslim communities in our large cities about this issue and that of the imams.
In this country we have some advantages. We have an established Church. Therefore religion is on the agenda for all to talk about. Unlike Germany, Muslims in Britain have citizenship. This difficult but vital debate must take place in that context. It is not just a question of the training of imams in this country. Half a dozen of my clergy intended to go to Pakistan. They wanted to learn and to listen, the better to work with Muslims in Bradford. Therefore, they asked if they might pay a visit to a local imam training seminary. The answer was, "No, we do not want you"—a complete flat refusal. Too often clergy working in Muslim areas of the city find themselves repulsed when seeking to develop or deepen relations between mosque and church.
I hope that your Lordships' House, under the Government, will encourage all people of real faith to open up these windows and doors so that we listen to each other—that is so crucial—and see where each is coming from and, having listened, share our understandings.
I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government—I acknowledge this as a special plea for Bradford—to consider three things. First, my Muslim friends in Bradford have been shocked by riots, by the atrocities in the United States, and by the attempts of some

167
extremist young Muslim organisations to exercise influence in our city. Would it financially be possible to establish a Muslim chaplaincy in the University of Bradford and Bradford College in order to counteract that extremist influence, thereby providing a bona fide sensible and true Islamic presence to offer guidance to gullible young people?
Secondly, in the university there is a world-renowned department of peace studies. Would it be possible to join with local Muslim businessmen and others to establish a chair especially to consider Islam and conflict resolution? That would be enormously welcome. It would develop the valuable work done already in an important university by that department.
Thirdly, and slightly differently, there is a feeling abroad that businesses are beginning to move out of Bradford because of fears over security. Those fears are felt by Muslim businesses as well as others. Would it be possible to improve and increase police resources and the police presence to give a sense of security to Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Jews and everyone of integrity, so they will stay, work at the matter and make our city one in which all can live with peace and understanding.
I make no apology for talking about Bradford. I believe that if Bradford and cities like it, which are multicultural, multiracial and multi-faith on any reckoning, can be encouraged to get all the communities together, committed to living in peace and justice, in harmony and tolerance, the county and beyond will feel the benefit. However, if we allow them to become seedbeds for youth discontent and disaffection, God help us.
2.18 p.m.
Lord Ouseley: My Lords, I rise with a great deal of humility and intrepedation to make my debut contribution to the House, having heard the experience and expertise offered so far by noble Lords. That existing wisdom and knowledge helps to provide us with information and understanding at a time when we need a great deal of knowledge and understanding. I thank noble Lords in all parts of the House for offering hands of friendship and their help, for which I am most grateful.
It is especially pleasing that the House has been recalled on two occasions following the inhumane atrocities in the United States on 11th September because, when addressing the danger to democracies throughout the world, it is important to exercise our own democracy in a way that enables the public to understand what is happening. The trauma that gripped many people on 11th September has not gone away. The questions "Who?" and "Why?" still require answers. From the first, we heard that Osama bin Laden was responsible. Today, thanks to the Leader of the House and the Minister, we heard more about the reasons for that belief.
168
As to "Why?", more answers have emerged because of the time that it has taken to consider and reflect on the information gathered and to explain to all those in our society who may have jumped to conclusions what might have to be done and the consequences.
I take the opportunity to express my own sorrow for all those who perished and who suffer—and to commend, thank and praise all those in the emergency services who gave their lives to try to save lives.
We looked for leadership and it was gratifying to see that quality emerge from the President of the United States, our Prime Minister, leaders of parties represented in our Parliament and religious leaders across different faiths. They came together on many occasions before the recent atrocities and have continued to do so, to generate confidence and promote more understanding.
The Prime Minister's leadership has been particularly important in reassuring the Muslim community about its contribution and value to our society and that the war against terrorism is not a war against Islam or Muslim communities in this country or abroad. Each of us must consider and determine our response in a sombre, calm and objective way. The period between 11th September and now has enabled us to do that and be more vigilant, yet we have witnessed an upsurge in random and unjustified violence and attacks on the Muslim community in particular.
The international coalition that is emerging and the military response that will inevitably take place will have an effect on our attitudes and responses but it is important to recognise that coming together must occur in a way that enables us to respond. The question has been asked of whether the events of 11th September have changed the world or will change the world and make a long-lasting difference. The immediate reaction to legislation to tackle religious hatred and violence is that such a development is an impulsive response. However, religious prejudice has been considered deeply by government over a long period, so it is appropriate to make such a response now and in a way that helps appreciation of the wide diversity of faiths in our communities.
The House will want to be certain that such legislation deals with hate crimes associated not only with religion or race but also homosexuality or domestic violence. Many people live in fear not of international terrorism but of leaving their own homes and being attacked, vilified or even violated. That fear existed before 11th September and has increased enormously. A number of our sisters and brothers in the Muslim community are fearful of leaving their homes and even of being in their homes. The coming together that I mentioned must reach across the barriers of hatred, wherever it arises. That hatred occurs as much in minority ethnic communities as it does across the colour lines between black and white.
We must attack the sources of ignorance and bigotry. The knowledge, experience and wisdom that I have shared in today's debate has given me a better appreciation of the problems that we face, why the

169
atrocities of 11th September occurred, and of the need to convey to the public the reasons for the atrocities that have occurred throughout the world for the past 20 years, 30 years or longer, which have inflicted terror and damage.
The more we convey those reasons, particularly through education, and increase public understanding, the greater the opportunity to increase knowledge of our diversity. Over the past 15 to 20 years, we have missed the opportunity to impose the diversity content on the national curriculum, to ensure that young people in schools of whatever denomination have the knowledge that will enable them to go forth into the world with respect for others. That applies not just to schools but also to colleges and universities.
Last October, a MORI survey published in Reader's Digest indicated that the vast majority of respondents believed that racial prejudice was increasing and would go on increasing. That is a sad indictment. People were not saying prejudice was getting worse for a particular reason. I was totally dismayed by that conclusion because I believed that things were getting better.
The survey revealed that when one starts with a prejudiced view, that prejudice is reinforced by the information that one receives or does not receive. Most respondents stated that the information which made them more prejudiced came from politicians and the media. Most of the respondents were adults, but politicians and the media also provide information and knowledge through our schools.
Therefore, we must recognise the damage which has been done in the past 10 years. The diet of anti-asylum seeking coverage has reinforced prejudice not only across the wider community but even among the minority ethnic communities in our society. That is all part of the build up of terror within our society which we must address as part of the opportunity which has arisen on the back of the disaster to build a better world for everyone. That applies not just elsewhere, but here in the UK.
The Prime Minister, who has given wonderful leadership during the past three weeks, indicated this week the dangers of inaction. Such inaction may surround the military responses which must be made in dealing with the Taliban and bin Laden, but we must also rid ourselves of the bigotry and hatred which exists in the UK and enable the vulnerable communities which face daily terror to overcome that through action.
I agree that we need to hear from the Home Secretary a statement on security in the UK; the measures necessary to deal with the movement of people, asylum seekers and incitement, and how those issues are to be addressed. We need to be certain that those measures will be brought forward.
I conclude by stressing once more that the opportunities that we are offered on the back of the atrocious disaster which has occurred in the United States must not be lost. There has been a coming together, but there has also been a rise in expressions
170
of racial and religious intolerance. Education is the key for the next generation to enable them to understand what we are doing and why we are doing it.
The fact that we are here today considering the issues which surround the response to the events of 11th September is part of the process of giving information to the nation and explaining what is happening and why. As we consider the responses and hear more as events unfold and happen, it is incumbent on us all not to forget the importance of getting things right here at home.
2.32 p.m.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, on his maiden speech in your Lordships' House today. No one can speak with better authority on race and community relations than the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley. His professional career has been devoted to promoting equality of opportunity and good relations among all sections of our community. I am confident that, as one of the first people's peers, and as we have heard in his speech today, the noble Lord brings enormous experience to this House. We look forward to hearing his views in future.
I join with all noble Lords in mourning with the people of the United States the tragic loss of life which resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent people belonging to more than 60 nationalities. The brutal murder of innocent civilians in the worst single act of mass terrorism includes people of all religious denominations. The carnage of 11th September includes not only Christians and Jews but many Muslims.
The Muslim world has been among the foremost to condemn this heinous atrocity. There has also been condemnation by the people of Europe, the Middle East, Asia and, indeed, Africa, all of whom have been subject to terrorism in one form or another.
I was delighted that the Government of Pakistan joined the international community in the condemnation of terrorism in all its forms. President Musharraf of Pakistan immediately declared his support for the United States and the international community in their fight against global terrorism. I refer to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, who is not in his place. In defence of Pakistan, I remind the House that it was Pakistan which was left to pick up the pieces after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
I happened to be in Pakistan when news of the horrific event took place. I watched the events unfold with mounting disbelief and outright horror. When I returned to the UK I was pleased to hear that the British Muslims had also condemned the terrorist attack in New York, contrary to comments made this morning by politicians. Muslims are concerned about increased racist attacks. Many cases have been reported to the police and in some sections of the media.
I thank the many police officers who have provided extra and excellent service to the British Muslim community during this difficult time. I also take the

171
opportunity to thank the Home Secretary the right honourable David Blunkett for announcing yesterday that Her Majesty's Government will introduce new laws, hence widening the scope of legislation to include such issues as religious and racial hatred, and will consider the creation of religious aggravated offences to complement the racially-motivated offences created by the Crime and Disorder Act. The new proposals will protect British citizens from the racist thugs and religious zealots who have created fear in our community.
There are a few vocal groups who represent only themselves and who are the shrillest in their condemnations and defence of the indefensible. Nothing would please the Muslim community more than for the fringe element which incites hatred to be locked up under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and for the Home Secretary to take firm action against such individuals.
However, in the aftermath of the carnage of New York, I was disturbed to see that some of the media, including the BBC, continued to use derogatory terminology such as "Islamic terrorists", "Islamic militants" and "Islamic extremists", so much so that "terrorism" and "Islam" became interchangeable terms. The media linkage of martyrdom to terrorism and the nonsense of 72 virgins waiting in Paradise for the suicide bomber is deeply offensive to Islam and to over 1 billion Muslims in the world.
I state categorically that suicide is absolutely forbidden in Islam. Hence, the notion of a suicide bomber is not only unacceptable but, on the contrary, there are ample references to the fires of hell awaiting those who commit such atrocities. Islam does not condone terrorism and the death of the innocent in any form. Indeed, the Qur'an unequivocally states in chapter 5 that whoever kills another human being,
"it shall be as if he killed all of mankind and whoever brings life to one, it shall be as if he brought life to all of mankind".
The same chapter states that those who disturb the peace of society and spread fear and disorder deserve the severest punishment that can be imposed.
There are other Qur'anic injunctions, to the extent that even if atheists seek asylum, they should be given protection and conveyed to a place of safety. Another relevant injunction states:
"Whatever wrong any human being commits rests upon himself alone and no bearer of burdens shall bear another's burdens".
That was to obviate the concept of collective criminalisation. Hence, to make innocent people responsible, as the terrorists have done, is contrary to the Holy Qur'an. Islam also goes further in search of peace by calling on the victims of aggression to realise that the taking of revenge can itself become as evil as the act of aggression, hence, whoever pardons and makes peace will be rewarded by God.
Thus, the atrocity in New York is not only totally contrary to the teachings of Islam but amounts to blasphemous behaviour and a crime against humanity. In Rwanda some of those indicted for the genocide which saw the loss of more than a million lives were
172
priests and nuns. I am, however, pleased that the media saw this as the aberrant behaviour of some and did not blame Roman Catholicism. Similarly, as the IRA is not regarded as Catholic terrorists—nor ETA in Spain, for that matter—and nor are the Tamil Tigers regarded as Hindu terrorists, then why link Islam to terrorism?
We have to be tough on terrorism and also on the causes of terrorism. Unless the international community is fully prepared to deal with the issues of global social injustice—such as the illegal occupation of other people's lands by other states, the tyrannies, the oppressions, the dictatorships and other abuses of human rights—rather than to pay lip service to them, we are, I am afraid, only creating conditions which will one day come back to haunt us.
I regret that the world at large, including the Muslim world, is in danger of sinking into tribalism with all the savagery unleashed in many parts of the globe. Because of the advent of globalisation, the hedonistic pursuit of materialistic values creates a vacuum in which aggression against each other thrives. No society is immune from violence, and the worst kind of violence is one which cloaks itself in the mantle of religion as the very invocation of religion often hides vicious objectives.
It is also imperative that we do not necessarily adopt a hands-off approach to a country or a group of countries because of close trading links or the so called "strategic interests", and only belatedly react when its culture or ideology so violently impinges on our values and norms.
By the same token, it would be a serious mistake to fix our gaze on the religious zealotry and to ignore the complex factors, which are not only economic but political and socio-cultural. Had these factors been addressed in Afghanistan in the aftermath of the Red Army's pull-out, and had that country not been abandoned by the West in the early 1990s, we would not be in the situation we are in today.
This terrorist crime needs to be addressed through the appropriate mechanisms rather than by bilateral actions. I should like to thank the Leader of the House for sharing some evidence with the House today. This evidence should be able to withstand scrutiny in any court of law and should not be merely of a circumstantial variety. We are, after all, a people who place enormous value on democracy, freedom of speech, the rule of law and justice. Hence, we have a duty to maintain the highest standards in these spheres.
Had the United States not objected to the setting up of the international criminal tribunal earlier this summer, it might have found that this would have been a proper forum in which to bring the perpetrators of this crime to justice, rather than to threaten, inter alia, one of the most deprived and most vulnerable victims of the Cold War between the United States and the former Soviet Union.
Indeed, let us pay tribute to the many hundreds of thousands of Afghans who lost their lives, and to those thousands more who are maimed for life, who helped

173
to bury Communism and who supported the West. I am delighted to hear the commitment from the Prime Minister that this time we will not turn our backs on the Afghan people but will ensure that there is peace, stability and reconstruction of that country.
There is a real need to modernise and reform the UN Security Council and to make it more representative of current realities. For too many people in the world there is a perception that one country's interests dominate what would be, or should be, the agenda for justice and peace for the whole world. In fact, everyone should feel represented in a body which provides justice under the law.
Our country has also experienced terrorism for many years. I am sorry to say that those who exploded bombs in our cities not only collected money but also marched down the streets of New York for many years. On the other hand, we have given refuge and, indeed, asylum to some who have created terror, mayhem and needless loss of life in other countries, such as Pakistan. This is not compatible with freedom of speech and the norms of democracy, or even with the international conventions.
Some of the countries which have been subjected to terrorism do not have the resources to combat this menace. I feel that we should make available our resources in terms of technical expertise and funding to fight this global menace of terrorism, while also taking care of the immediate needs and the causes of the inequities which in turn spiral into a cycle of violence.
I am heartened by the increased financial and logistical support provided by the Secretary of State for International Development, Claire Short, for the humanitarian crisis in respect of refugees streaming out of Afghanistan. I hope that the DfID will deal directly with the Governments of Iran and Pakistan and the established NGOs in the region for the provision of humanitarian aid to the refugees rather than involve UNHCR, which acts only as a middleman. It appears that were more money made available to UNHCR, a figure of less than 30 per cent would end up reaching the refugees. Its latest financial statements, issued in September, carry a qualification, for the first time ever in its history, by the UN Board of Auditors. Perhaps UNHCR should focus on its mandate of international protection only.
Finally, I should like to thank both the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, and the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, for reassuring the Muslim community that this was not a war against Islam but against terrorism. They are right when they say that Islam is a religion of peace.
2.47 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to make a short intervention in the debate. Perhaps I may start by saying how strongly I support the position taken by my right honourable friend Mr Duncan Smith in support of the Government and how, thus, I support the Government in the resolute action they are taking. I was going to say, "in support of the United States",
174
but we are doing very much more than merely supporting the United States; we are participating with it in the establishment of this coalition against the terrible people who perpetrated the events of 11th September.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, emphasised, this is not a conflict or a war, if that is the word, against Islam. It is a war against fundamental terrorists. It is no more a war against Islam than the conflict in Northern Ireland, for example, is a war against Roman Catholics. It is a war against criminal terrorists, and that is the basis on which we should conduct the offensive, if it comes to that.
Ever since the end of the Cold War at the end of the 1980s, it has been the fashion to take advantage of the so-called "peace dividend". But, sadly, despite the changes that took place at that time, the world is not a safer place.
The Secretary of State for Defence, Mr Hoon, has recently been talking about "refocusing" defence activity. Indeed, I think I am right in saying that he started talking about a defence review. All defence reviews in my experience have resulted in less rather than more defence expenditure. I fear that the time has come to review the decline in defence expenditure generally. I do not wish to make a political point about that—reductions in defence expenditure have been carried out by both par ties in this country in recent years and in other countries too—but the threat now posed by international terrorism, reflected so terribly in the events of 11th September, must surely cause a revision of that consideration. The plain fact is that we shall have to review the extent of our defence expenditure. It may be that we shall have to change some of it, but reduce it we most certainly should not.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a lengthy speech at the Labour Party Conference the other day. He mentioned a number of areas where he hoped to increase government expenditure. I think that I am right in saying that the word "defence" never passed his lips during the course of that speech. In the circumstances in which we find ourselves that is perhaps a pity because too often in the past the defence budget has been raided in circumstances prior to the ones in which we now find ourselves, to the general disadvantage of our defence posture.
We are still moved to grief and to prayer for the 7,000 or so people who were tragically killed in New York nearly three weeks ago. But it seems that very soon now there will be some kind of military action in Afghanistan in which undoubtedly our own Armed Forces will play a part. Is it therefore not now time for us to offer our thoughts and prayers to them?
2.51 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, there have been many impressive speeches in the debate so far and there surely will be many more before the day is done. As someone who in the dim and distant past achieved a history degree I was particularly impressed with the speech of my noble friend Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon who showed a remark able historical

175
knowledge of the possible conflict that faces us. I am sure that reference will be made to that in the course of future developments.
In the wake of the appalling events in the United States on 11th September, many security issues have had to be re-examined. I should like to speak specifically about the security of energy supplies. The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, referred to the potential vulnerability of the world energy situation. Energy is, of course, a vital element in the economy, whether for industry, the home or transport. In recent years we have been particularly fortunate because of the abundance of gas and oil from the North Sea. But these reserves are now beginning to run out and we shall become increasingly dependent on imports. In the case of gas, which dominates the industrial and domestic markets, we could, according to the Government, be importing as much as 90 per cent of our requirements by the year 2020.
Safeguarding energy supplies raises short and longer-term issues. Short-term measures should include building up emergency stocks. We are committed under the International Energy Agency to hold stocks of at least 90 days of oil. No doubt that is being done, but we should consider whether that should be increased in the present circumstances. In the case of gas there are virtually no emergency strategic stocks, no doubt due to the fact that we had such an abundant supply from the North Sea. As that is going to change, we should seriously consider building up such stocks, particularly as Continental countries have done so for some time. Crucial and vulnerable installations should be specifically protected, as referred to by my noble friend Lord McNally, and there should be back-up sources of electricity for essential purposes wherever these do not already exist. I do not expect the Government to reveal the detailed security measures they are taking in relation to energy or, indeed, to other matters under their control. However, I hope that they can give us an assurance that in this crucial area urgent action is being taken.
In the longer term the Government have recently embarked upon a fundamental review of energy policy. I submit that in the light of the recent events the long-term security of energy supplies has taken on a new dimension. As I have pointed out, the main feature of the UK energy scene for the past decade has been the increasing dominance of gas. Unless action is taken, the use of gas is likely to continue to increase and in due course virtually all of it will have to be imported. The prospect of total import dependence for a dominant energy source would be undesirable in normal circumstances and is all the more undesirable in the new circumstances that have arisen.
What action should be taken? On the supply side urgent attention needs to be devoted to alternative energy sources. There should be greater use of coal—an industry with which I had something to do in the past—of which abundant reserves remain, accompanied by the application of clean coal technology to reduce the environmental impact. The
176
nuclear contribution is likely to diminish from 2010 onwards and its role will need to be reassessed. It is urgent that the issue of the disposal of nuclear waste is settled. Much more effort needs to be devoted to promoting renewable resources and possible obstacles arising from the climate change levy and the Utilities Act need to be dealt with. There should also be a major development of combined heat and power which is being held up at the present time.
The definition of "renewable sources" needs to be widened. It would be better to talk about alternative sources of energy to include such fuels as methane from coal mines which, if it goes to waste, causes substantial environmental damage. That is an issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, has frequently drawn attention.
Action is also required on the demand side. Much greater emphasis needs to be put on the efficient use of energy where the impetus has diminished in recent years by the emphasis which has been put on reducing prices. While it is wholly desirable to increase our competitiveness and reduce the impact of fuel poverty, the real point at which the cost of energy needs to be reduced is in its use and not in the delivery of the unit of energy. Policies in the future need to be modified to achieve that change of emphasis.
In the case of electricity, which is a vital secondary energy source, the move towards smaller scale generation, or embedded generation as it is sometimes known, needs to be accentuated. I should here declare an interest as I have recently set up a company called Micropower to promote this development which I consider will make an important contribution to future energy security.
In the transport sector, which is almost entirely dependent on petroleum products, more effort needs to be put into fuel efficiency and diversification. Alternative fuel sources such as bio-fuels need to be actively promoted. That is an issue which the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, has raised on a number of occasions.
To sum up, there is a need to put in place urgently a series of short-term measures to safeguard essential energy supplies. In the longer term the current review of energy policy needs to contain proposals both on the supply and the demand side which will offset increasing import dependence.
2.58 p.m.
Baroness Richardson of Calow: My Lords, I wish to pick up a point which the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, mentioned in opening about bringing good out of evil. I believe that crisis often goes hand in hand with opportunity. I wish to examine the signs of hope that I see in response to the atrocious act of terrorism on 11th September. I believe that we can identify four signs of hope, however tentative, in the way the response has been made.
First, I refer to the understanding of our interdependence and interconnectedness as communities. The isolation of which other noble Lords have spoken is not common and often our

177
communities link hands across the world. We have spoken of standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States. That has obviously been a real response for many people. But it is also true that, as British citizens, there are those who stand shoulder to shoulder with other communities all around the world. This promotes a rich and diverse society which has its links in friends and family connections across the globe. That has produced something which I believe would have been unthinkable only a few months ago. Alliances are now being formed across the nations. If press speculation is to be believed, our Prime Minister is to visit not only Russia, but also Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. That would previously have been unthinkable. Such alliances, which are now becoming a reality, appear to be a real sign of hope.
I was much taken with the statement made by the Muslim Council of Britain on 11th September. It stated that:
"Terror makes victims of us all".
When we share in that common sense of terror and victimisation, we also share in a response which will allow for more creative work to be done. Unity often depends on a common enemy. If that common enemy is seen not to be the demonisation or scapegoating of a particular community, but rather is perceived as something that exists in every community—the powers of evil and lawlessness within communities—perhaps we shall stand a better chance of creating a global village in which peace can be a reality.
Secondly, I believe that, however tentatively, we have been developing a new understanding of the role of religion. We now see religion neither as something powerless but pleasant which enables one better to value a sunset or have something good to do on a Sunday, nor in terms of the power of evil with people passionately believing in something which is not believable, but as a common force for good and cohesion within societies. It is encouraging that over the past three weeks more people have attended church. I believe that sales of the Koran have rocketed in high street shops. Those are good signs which indicate that people are beginning to recognise what those of us who belong to a religious faith know already. I refer to the sense of personal accountability to a higher force and to a passionate commitment to the common good. These factors are forces for good within all the religions practised in our society.
The third sign of hope that I have identified is the one referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed; namely, the immediate response to terrorism. During the last war there was a saying, "Careless talk costs lives". I believe that the language we use has changed over the past three weeks. It is now less likely, either in the media or in Statements, to hear the term "Islamic fundamentalists" being used in relation to the terrorists. Terrorists should not be dignified by the title of Islamic fundamentalists any more than terrorists on both sides in Ireland should be called Christians. Terrorism is not the outcome of a religious faith, and terrorists should not be allowed to hide behind it. We have learned to take more care with our language and
178
to value its meaning. The fundamentals of all religions are truth, compassion, justice and mercy. We must uphold those values as much as we can.
I turn to my fourth sign of hope. While it is true that there have been some instances of intimidation and threat to those of different faiths living in this country, there have been infinitely more expressions of friendship and solidarity than are ever mentioned in the press. In countless communities up and down the country, overtures of friendship have been made between churches and mosques. Hundreds of people have been gathering together in small groups to try to understand each other better. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London mentioned a meeting held yesterday evening, at which I, too, was present. It marked a significant moment when all sides came together to stand in solidarity. One of the speakers at the meeting quoted rather effectively the words of Mahatma Gandhi when he stated that:
"An eye for an eye, if taken to its logical conclusion, means that the whole world will be blind".
We are learning to trust each other, to accept each other's values and to work together. However, such alliances, both within this country and internationally, are precarious. They need to be established and nurtured. They need time to grow so that the world can become a better place.
One effect of what has happened in America has been to bring out such signs of hope in our societies. However, they have also been the result of much long, hard work, most specifically by the Inter Faith Network of this country and, dare I say, by the Churches' Commission for Inter Faith Relations, of which I am chair. On 10th September the commission launched its religious discrimination report in the hope that everyone will be able to enter into a discussion about what is the proper way for the law in this country to include religious discrimination as well as racial discrimination in its tenets. For obvious reasons, the report did not receive the coverage that perhaps it deserved. None the less, it is an extremely important document and I hope that it will be a helpful contribution to the debate that we must have, not only about incitement to religious hatred—I greatly welcome such a debate—but also about how properly to support and protect religious faiths in this country. That debate needs to be nurtured.
I plead for the restraint which has been demonstrated so far to continue. It is my belief that we never reach the end of the conversation which attempts to engage even terrorists in mutual conversation, so that we can make a difference. One wayward missile would destroy more than an Afghan village. I also believe that, in seeking to bring these people to justice rather than resorting to assassination, at this time we must have concern not only for criminal justice, but also for the long-term and far-reaching social justice which might mean that there will be no such attacks in the future.
3.7 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, before I turn to the main part of my speech, I wish to say two or three words about

179
Northern Ireland, in particular because the noble Baroness, Lady Park, devoted a good deal of her contribution to that part of the United Kingdom.
First, I believe that the Government's policy as regards policing has been a success, as evidenced by the fact that the policing board has now been set up and that the SDLP and the main unionist parties have joined the board. I think that it is churlish to suggest otherwise. Secondly, as regards the Special Branch and action against terrorism, I have complete confidence in the Chief Constable, Ronnie Flanagan. I do not believe that he would make any changes to policing procedures in Northern Ireland unless he felt that it was consistent with the prevailing security situation to do so.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I should like to correct one evident misunderstanding. I did not for a moment suggest that good things have not taken place as regards the issue of the police. I said that the SDLP had joined. My point was that the IRA had not.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I do not think that we have time to enter into a long debate. That should be left for another day. I simply wished to point out that, first, the Government's policy on policing had been a success. Secondly, Ronnie Flanagan has made decisions in the interests of good policing and security in Northern Ireland and I fully support those decisions. Thirdly, I think that the noble Baroness was less than generous to Mr Ramaphosa and Mr Ahtisaari, to whom she referred in a manner which I felt was unworthy of two eminent international statesmen. They have enormously important track records, in South Africa on the one hand and as a former president of Finland on the other. As I said, I believe that it was less than generous to suggest that they were bumbling, incompetent people, which was more or less the thrust of what she said.
Since our previous debate on this issue, we have had time to consider the implications of what happened in New York on 11th September. I believe that we have had even more time than was available in that debate to reflect on the enormous bravery of the New York fire service and police and of many other New Yorkers. We have had an opportunity to reflect on the increasingly mature approach of the United States Administration. We have been made more aware of the dreadful toll of life and the tragic last-minute telephone messages of those who knew that they were about to die, either in the buildings or on some of the aircraft.
Furthermore, I believe that we are more aware now than we were three weeks ago of the continuing threat imposed by bin Laden and his terrorist network. It is a very real threat in this country, in the United States and in many other countries. If there is only one main aim for Western government policy—indeed, not only for Western government policy but for that of other governments, particularly those in the region—it is to do all that we can to prevent, or at least to lessen, the chance of further abominable acts of terrorism. That
180
must surely underlie the approach that we take to this matter. If another major attack were to take place on our way of life or on innocent people, that would be another appalling atrocity. It is right that governments do what they can to prevent it, and that, of course, means getting rid of bin Laden.
It also means that there is a need for far more covert action and probably an increasing role for Western intelligence services. It will involve educating the public in all our countries that this will, indeed, be a long haul and that we must be resolute, firm and single-minded in our purpose; otherwise, as time goes by, it will be easy to give a lower priority to these matters than we would give today. That will be a challenge for governments everywhere.
One key issue in this matter is the source of information. Clearly, not only in this country, where we have good sources of information, but in many parts of the world where those do not exist, we need to ensure the existence of accurate, impartial information and informed analysis and, indeed, debate so that people in Afghanistan and in the adjoining areas can be aware of the issues and of what is happening. We may not always be as aware of the issues as we have the ability to be.
I welcome the fact that the BBC World Service has stepped up its programming significantly in recent weeks. I understand that at least 60 public radio stations in the US have taken a large amount of World Service programming. However, perhaps more importantly, the BBC has expanded its World Service in Pashto, Persian and Urdu. It has extended its Arabic news service to 24 hours a day, and it is also increasing the use of medium and short-wave transmissions to Afghanistan. That is important because there is no television in Afghanistan and very few credible newspapers. Therefore, the main source of information is the radio.
According to limited survey work carried out by the World Service among heads of households, it is indicated that 70 per cent of Pashto speakers and 60 per cent of Persian speakers listen to the BBC World Service. Eighty-six per cent judge it to be newsworthy. Sixteen million people listen to the BBC World Service each week in Pakistan. Forty per cent of recently surveyed international travellers—admittedly a slightly skewed sample—from Iran are regular World Service listeners. I hope very much that the BBC World Service will be given resources not only at present but in the future to ensure that it can continue with that type of full coverage. It is important to ensure that people in the region are aware of what has happened and of what is being done and the measured way in which the issue is being approached.
Perhaps I may also mention the work of the British Council in the region—a much longer-term objective. The British Council is playing a part in education and the spread of information, and I consider that to be crucial.
It is vital that we continue to seek the support and commitment of countries in the region. I believe that one of our aims must be to dry up the recruitment

181
sources for terrorist organisations. On the evidence available, I am well aware that the hijackers in the United States came from well-heeled, affluent backgrounds. They were educated people who were not in poverty. We must consider that fact in relation to what is happening. However, I believe that it is important that we dry up the recruitment of people to bin Laden's terrorist organisation in whatever way that we can. I do not say that a direct link exists between what is happening in Israel and its adjoining countries and bin Laden's activities. However, a positive good to come out of the current situation would be the establishment of a peaceful settlement between the people of Israel, the Palestinians and those of the adjoining states. I would very much like the Mitchell plan for the Middle East to be put back on the agenda as an important contribution to developing peace.
One important consideration must surely be not to destabilise the Government of Pakistan. The set-up there is fragile; at least, I believe that it is, judging by the changes of government. It is important that we support Pakistan and that we do not take action which would destabilise it. Of course, we all welcome the Prime Minister's commitment to tackle poverty in the region, to send aid to Afghanistan and, indeed, to assist Iran and Pakistan in coping with what is likely to be a large movement of refugees from Afghanistan into those countries. It is important that we continue to do so because the effect of a large flow of people could itself be destabilising for the region.
Perhaps I may repeat the comment that has been made by many people: the Muslim community in this country has been resolute in condemning terrorist actions. I have heard nothing but condemnation from the Muslim community, not only in this House but also in the country as a whole, of what happened in New York. I am very sorry that a former Prime Minister has suggested otherwise. Of course, I welcome the Government's commitment to legislation against religious discrimination. I hope that we can define "religion" in such a way that it does not cause too much confusion. I believe that a difficulty lies in that, but I welcome the commitment in principle and I hope that the Government will be able to give good effect to it.
Lastly, I do not believe that today we can sensibly debate all the civil liberty issues that are liable to stem from what has happened. We do not know the details of the Government's policies; we have simply heard hints of the general direction in which they want to go. We shall certainly consider the matter in detail but I believe that it should be left for another day. Today is the day on which to be firm and resolute and to accept that a serious threat still exists and that it is up to governments to lessen that threat.
3.17 p.m.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, in the history of our country we have been through many turbulent times. Inevitably, when debate follows events of the
182
type that we have witnessed recently, it is the occasion for sombre reflection and, as has been witnessed thus far today, quiet resolve.
I believe that what happened in America on 11th September will be marked down for ever in our calendar as a day of evil. It was a day when terrorism struck at the very heart of America and brought a rude shock to so many American citizens who, until that time, had harboured the dream or illusion that they were somehow invulnerable to the type of events that have engulfed other parts of the world from time to time. Naturally, our heart goes out to all those who have suffered from the frightful atrocities. We must do and contribute whatever we can to guard against their repetition.
What has happened compels us to assess, to reassess and to take stock. I have no doubt that attitudes and positions will need to be changed in a number of different directions. Not least is that likely to be the case in the Middle East. The threat of "bin Ladenism" is not only against the West; it carries grave implications for other countries as well—not least for Saudi Arabia.
I hope that somehow in the aftermath of the horror that we have all witnessed a new statesmanlike position can be adopted in some countries in the Middle East. I listened with great interest to the distinguished maiden speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I found myself in sympathy with much of what he said about the state of Israel. I find particularly offensive the aggressive establishment of settlements on Palestinian or Arab-owned land. Frankly, at this moment there is an urgent need to subordinate the pursuit of narrow nationalist objectives and to aim instead at restoring stability and at bringing prosperity to those areas in which there is poverty and which constitute a breeding ground for unrest. That applies to parts of the territory that is currently under the governorship of Israel.
The Prime Minister, through his energetic and effective leadership, helped to mould the consortium in support of the American-led response to terrorism. However, in his speech to the Labour Party conference he drew on from that and expressed the hope that that would bring about developments in European policy, that we would all find ourselves coming closer together in that regard and that we would find solutions in Africa and elsewhere. I do not in any way disparage his vision—I understand what he was saying—but he has a very long-term objective.
What impresses me about the way in which the consortium has been brought together is the fact that there has been commonality of purpose. There is clear-cut evidence of the objective. People know and understand what we are aiming to achieve. When the cause is clear and the purpose is plain, countries come together. I hope that we continue in years to come to preserve sufficient independence, flexibility and capability always to be able to act decisively in our self-defence. The United Kingdom's position is pivotal in the three concentric circles of the transatlantic alliance, the Commonwealth and Europe. We should retain

183
that position and not allow ourselves to be caught up in anything that is fixed and reduces our ability to manoeuvre when we need to counter hostilities from elsewhere.
Faced with the possibility that any further manifestations of terrorism might develop into a catastrophe of almost unimaginable proportions it is necessary for the US-led action to take place fairly soon. I have never quite understood what is meant by "proportionate" in relation to the action that is likely to be taken simply because the only action that is worth taking is that which most effectively achieves the objective of eliminating the terrorists' capability of being able to strike again. If anything goes beyond that it is clearly unnecessary. Within that, whatever action it is necessary to take should be taken and we should not try politically to circumscribe the ability of our forces to achieve that.
However, for our efforts to curb terrorists' activities to have any effect at all, we must operate simultaneously on several fronts. There is a need to take action on the civil front and against those who campaign and raise funds and those who issue propaganda or incite hatred. The priority is obviously to destroy the Taliban and bin Laden centres of power in Afghanistan because it is from there that so much of the evil work is being planned and launched.
The Al'Qaeda network appears to be very tightly organised, highly disciplined and heavily funded and it has a most successful system of communication at its command. To destroy it will require a composite campaign of considerable complexity. It will also be of long duration. It is essential that, throughout the duration of that campaign, the Government sustain the support and resolution of the people of this country. They will need to do so through constant communication, explanation and education.
We have to come to terms with an entirely new definition of hostilities in which the "enemy" is barely identifiable and whose single-minded agents are directed silently from cells deeply embedded, even here, among the ever-tolerant, unsuspecting and freedom-loving peoples of the western democracies. To further their aims the terrorists will stop at nothing. Life itself, their own as well as that of others, has no meaning for them. They are driven by a fanatical hatred and by the conviction that they will find "infinite paradise". Moves against trained terrorist activists, wherever in the world they may be hiding, must be urgently and vigorously undertaken.
I hope that we are now no longer in any way complacent about what we need to do. I was impressed by the references of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, to the security services. I am not by any means an expert on the subject but I believe that we now have to look for a degree of co-ordination and co-operation between our security services such as we have never previously witnessed. In this country perhaps we can expect MI5, MI6, GCHQ, Customs and Excise, the Immigration Service and the police to work together as one integrated task force, pooling information and sharing intelligence. I hope that some
184
of that work will be centrally directed—or at any rate centrally accountable—and that a Minister, if not the Prime Minister, will be directly responsible for the necessary legislation.
It may be necessary to consider the introduction of computerised records that note the movement of individuals at all United Kingdom points of entry and departure. Nor should we ignore the more localised terror organisations and those who incite violence from platform and pulpit. Too many self-styled freedom fighters still have sanctuary in this country. For example, the Tamil Tigers, whose suicide bombers have for decades wreaked such havoc in Sri Lanka while the world turned its back, are still here raising money for mass murder. Surely we should now say and actually mean that time has run out for the paramilitary groups in our midst. We must make it clear that groups such as the IRA, which connive with extremists in other lands, which finance their activities through extortion and drugs and which resort to bombs and bullets in order to get their way, have no place in a free country. That message is not for us alone; it is also for our friends in America who are misguidedly one of the IRA's main sources of finance.
If we are serious in our determination to act against terrorism in all its forms, which clearly both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary are, then it is time to take the gloves off and to get down to business. If that proves to be unpleasant and painful and if it offends some people's sensitivities, that is a price that we, and they, must be prepared to pay. Otherwise, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" count for nothing.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, many noble Lords have spoken from great experience and with great expertise on the military and historical background of the present difficulties. Many have spoken with characteristic concern and generosity about the humanitarian dilemma that faces us. I simply want to make a few remarks based on my experience in Northern Ireland, where I have spent most of my adult life trying to bring some element of peace and tolerance during ongoing terrorist campaigns. I hope that they will not be seen merely as the dispirited comments of a Speaker whose Assembly is perilously close to suspension, but rather as words of caution.
I fear that in the tone and content of many of the contributions there has been a sense with which I am familiar. When good people come to Northern Ireland from this side of the water after 20 or 30 years, from a community where tolerance and plurality are watchwords—I see at least one of them in his place today—and attempt to deal with a place where terrorism is rife, one of my difficulties lies in persuading them when they have great difficulty in believing the words of those who hold entirely different views.
One of the problems with terrorists is that they tend to tell you what they intend to do and what they believe; but that is so unpalatable to people from a democratic society that we choose not to believe it and,

185
instead, to make up explanations that are more appealing to us. For example, Mr bin Laden is very clear: out of his religious beliefs and convictions he wants to destroy western capitalism and liberal, democratic society, because he believes that these things are terribly wrong. He does not regard our wish, for example, to create a free and democratic society in Afghanistan where men and women have equal rights and opportunities, where there is peace and prosperity, freedom to travel and open and prosperous trade as greatly to be desired. He sees it as the work of the devil incarnate, and he wants to destroy that possibility, not only in the part of the world where he currently lives—it is not his home except in so far as he has made it so—but right across the face of the earth. He is clear about that.
So noble Lords are mistaken to say that this is all about poverty. Mr bin Laden is not a poor man and never has been. The members of Baader-Meinhof and the Red Army Faction were not poor people. Those who led the Shining Path were not poor, benighted, uneducated souls. Her Majesty's Government felt over a long period of time that in Northern Ireland the resolution was to ensure that there was no longer poverty in places such as West Belfast and pumped in huge amounts of money. It did not bring violence to an end; nor did it bring polarisation, sectarianism and extremism to an end. These matters are about people's beliefs and feelings. Not everyone wants to create the kind of society that we want to see and attempt to create. Indeed, some believe that it is dreadfully and terribly wrong—and not necessarily out of poverty. Most terrorism campaigns—I am not talking about disaffection and trouble on the streets but about international terrorism—rarely arise from a question of simple poverty.
That is not in any way to suggest that poverty, ignorance and disease are not matters to be dealt with, or that we should not already have been addressing the problems in Afghanistan, which have not arisen since 11th September and are not the cause of the events of that day. They had been present for a long time as a result of the drought and so on. Of course all these matters need to be dealt with as moral imperatives. But dealing with them will not resolve the terrorist campaign.
References have been made to the situation in the Middle East. That is also an area where matters need to be resolved. I happen to agree with the suggestions made by George Mitchell, whom I know from his previous incarnation, and with the suggestion that the Palestinians ought to have their own state. The idea seems eminently reasonable and I support it. But the House should not assume that that will bring to an end the wish to wipe Israel off the map. It will not. It is a naïve illusion; it is wishful thinking.
The problem is much more difficult. It is not the case that when we address some of the social and economic problems everyone sits down, has a cup of tea with us and says, "Isn't it great? We're all going to live in the same happy liberal, democratic, pluralist, tolerant world. Some noble Lords have said that the solution lies in all religions wanting to respect each other and
186
live in plurality. I wish that that were so. Right reverend Prelates no doubt complain about the remarks of clerics in my part of the world. They may even be tempted to say that what it being stated is not the Gospel, that it is not Christian. But those who say it do not believe that; they believe that the right reverend Prelates are not Christian and that they are not preaching the Gospel. That is a painful truth. When it is said that this has nothing to do with Islam, in a sense I understand that point. In a sense it is true. But those who are following it through believe that it is Islamic, and that is what is important in terms of dealing with the difficulties.
All the issues about making sure that such a slur is not applied are all well taken and are right. But my greatest fear at present is that Islamic fundamentalism—that is what it is, whether we like it or not—will spawn Christian fundamentalism in the United States, Jewish fundamentalism in Israel and Hindu fundamentalism in India. These things tend to produce their equal and opposite. Those who have more tolerant and pluralist ideas then tend to brushed aside. My remark is born of painful experience.
Yes, the social and economic questions need to be dealt with; but they will not in themselves necessarily resolve the problem. I plead that we take seriously what such people say about themselves, because they believe it. In holding such beliefs, they do not become "suicide bombers"—that is what we call them—they become martyrs to their cause; that is what they believe themselves to be. It is quite a different thing.
Furthermore, we are dealing with a different kind of difficulty. It is not new—indeed, this country began experiencing it in a serious way in the 19th century in relation to Ireland—but it has reached new levels for all kinds of reasons. That is not necessarily because the terrorists have the technology, but because they can now turn our technology against ourselves. Our capacity to communicate with and to translate people from one part of the world to another is turned, in the form of aircraft, into the destruction of those things that not only symbolise but are central features of world trade, with the use of a pen knife. It is not a question of whether such people have the technology—although it will be extremely frightening for us to discover some of the technology that may be available to them.
We are also dealing with a network. I hear the remarks that are made about Afghanistan. It is absolutely right that we should address those matters. My noble friend Lord Ashdown pointed out how careful we need to be in terms of interfering in that country. But this is not a tightly structured, hierarchical terrorist organisation. Cut off that head, and a whole lot of others spring up all over the place. The cell structure that was created was also created in the IRA many years ago and was extremely successful. Capture one person and it does not make any difference: he knows only another two or three people in the structure. It is highly effective. This is the world of networks—the Internet, relationships and communications. Dealing with it will not be easy.

187
What joins together Afghanistan, the United States and the United Kingdom? Afghanistan produces large amounts of drugs. The United States' top target for drugs is Colombia. Terrorists from the United Kingdom have recently been in Colombia with those who work using drugs and terrorism and who have links with Afghanistan. That network does not just sprout out of 11th September. The terrorists did not plan 11th September with the idea that they would then put their feet up, sit back and do nothing for the next four or five years while we put everything together. We must accept that there not only may, but will be more atrocities. Each time we come to London we take the risk of being involved in one such atrocity because London has been and remains a prime target.
We are living in a changed situation. I am relieved that our Government, the Government of the United States and other governments have not sat back but have reflected carefully before acting. Act they must—we must. No amount of talking and pleading will resolve the problems, but we must think through carefully what we are doing. We must face the unpalatable fact that the very thing that we want for ourselves and for others—liberal, pluralist, tolerant prosperous, free-trading, democratic countries in which men and women, young people and old, people of different religious faiths and of none can live together in plurality—is exactly the world that the terrorists want to destroy.
Terrorism is a tactic, but it is more than that. It is a way of thinking, a way of construing and understanding the world. It is a virus that is now well embedded in us and we must think and work hard, and face— as we often must with a disease—some unpleasant realities if we are to get the treatment right.
3.43 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, has certainly injected a note of realism into the debate, for which I thank him. My speech is somewhat more optimistic, but, I hope, no less realistic. I want to speak about the necessity of dialogue. Of necessity, we have heard a lot about conflict this morning and this afternoon, but dialogue is necessary if the conflict is to be justified and if there is to be a programme of international reconstruction in the aftermath of that conflict.
Last month's tragic events have shown us in the most vivid possible way the urgency of dialogue between different systems of thought, polity and social organisation—the dialogue between civilisations to which President Khatami of Iran has drawn our attention. But as the Roman Catholic theologian Hans Kung, never tires of pointing out, such a dialogue can be useful only if it is undergirded by dialogue between different religious traditions, for it is they which underlie so much of culture, politics and even economics.
One feature of our patchwork and plural world is that increasingly civilisations are not monolithic. People with different cultures, beliefs and world views
188
now live cheek by jowl with one another. That means that, as my brother, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, pointed out, we must promote dialogue not only between civilisations but within them. I must point out to him that St. John of Damascus, to whom he referred, suffered at the hands not only of the iconoclasts in Byzantium but of the rulers whom he served, the Omayyads in Damascus. In the end, his left hand was amputated and he retired to a monastery in Jerusalem.
In this country, it is good that the need for dialogue has long been recognised. Leaders of faith communities are conscious of the importance of keeping lines of communication open, and bodies such as the Inter Faith Network, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson of Calow, provide coordination within communities and between them and government. Of course, some may be reluctant to engage in any kind of conversation, but many are willing.
However, worldwide we need an immediate reorientation in our policy on exchanges, scholarships and research. The role of the British Council has been mentioned. Too much of our policy has been built on materialistic assumptions that have favoured the physical and life sciences and technology at the expense of subjects such as culture, faith and history—more elusive, but important nevertheless.
That policy has now been proved to be both narrow-minded and dangerous. There is a kind of scientific fundamentalism about it. Technical training takes no account of the uses to which science and technology may be put—whether terrorism, internal repression or exploitation of the poor. I have seen examples of all three. In future, we should be sure that we are engaging with beliefs, values and traditions, which are at the heart of cultures, rather than promoting optimistic and false beliefs about homogenising the world through the spread of technology.
Contrary to popular—and even, dare I say, scholarly—beliefs, there is a long tradition in the Islamic world of a civil polity that recognises the importance of intermediate political, judicious and religious institutions, which are seen to mediate, interpret and develop the injunctions of revelation, as Muslims see them. Such a society will, of course, be founded on the principles of Islam. As the former Chief Justice of the Pakistani Supreme Court, Dr. Nasim Hasan Shah, points out, the laws and institutions of such a society will be conducive to Muslims practising their faith, but they will not be coercive. That is the issue: no one will be forced to be a Muslim; no one will have to be a Muslim in a particular way decreed by the state.
In that connection, it is worth pointing out that the earliest so-called heretics in Islamic history were the Kharijites, who rejected all intermediate institutions, including the Caliphate, and proclaimed the direct rule of God—theocracy in its pure form—lā hukm illā illā li-llāh. However, their view has never, I am glad to say, gained general acceptance in the Islamic world. For more than 200 years, leading Muslim scholars—both

189
Shia and Sunni—have discussed the different ways in which the various schools of Islamic law, the Sharia, can be related to modern conditions.
The Arab scholar, Wael Hallaq, in his most recent study of principles of movement in the different schools of Islamic law, illustrates the continuity of that concern among Islamic jurists.
It is of the utmost importance that those engaged in the building of civil society in the Islamic world, and those who are working for the development of Islamic law in the light of contemporary circumstances, are recognised and supported, not only by their own governments, but also by the wider international community.
Another area which merits further exploration and dialogue is that of jihad, mentioned already by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. That has been variously interpreted in Islam to mean struggling against oppression, against hostility to Islam and, as the noble Lord said, even against one's lower instincts.
I pointed out some years ago that dialogue about jihad and the Christian concept of the "just" war, could be fruitful. It may lead to a wider international consensus on the circumstances in which the use of armed force can be justified. We must listen carefully to what Muslims say about the rest of the world. If it is not an abode of a war—as traditionally described—what is it? We wait to hear the answers.
I am delighted, like other noble Lords, that there is to be substantial emergency aid for those likely to be affected by the current conflict. However, it is unlikely to be more than a fraction of the military cost. Both kinds of expenditure may be necessary now. But how do they compare to any political and diplomatic effort in solving major underlying problems which fuel militancy? Palestine, Kashmir and Chechnya have all been mentioned today in this House. It may be that the resolution of these disputes does not eradicate terrorism, but it will certainly remove its sting in many parts of the world.
Encouraging better internal security in states at risk and choking off the financial supply routes of extremist organisations, both semi-official and illicit, is a sound policy. Public opinion worldwide may also tolerate overt military action provided that there is proper authority for it; that it is proportionate—by that I mean that it does not cause greater evil than the evil it is seeking to remove: that is the meaning of "proportionate" in just war theory—that it does not harm civilians; and that it is aimed at establishing an enduring peace and not more war.
Such action may bring about a backlash against Muslims living as minorities in the West and elsewhere—again, India comes to mind—and also against non-Muslim minorities living in predominantly Muslim countries. Therefore I welcome the steps being taken to prevent incitement to religious hatred here and I welcome the comments of my brother the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford about the protection of non-Muslim minorities in Muslim countries like Pakistan. It is crucial that government and law enforcement agencies be prepared for such an
190
eventuality. Failure at this time would set back the cause of peaceful, multi-cultural and multi-fed societies by many years.
In relation to Afghanistan, further division will not clean up the country. Surely we need a United Nations sponsored conference which brings together the different ethnic and political groups as a first step towards a government of national unity which is then protected by some form of international guarantee.
Freedom from terrorism is a very significant prize, and people, including the populations of Muslim countries who have suffered the most, may be willing to pay the price. In the end however the battle is not just on poverty; it is also a battle for minds and hearts. That is why I return to my original theme of the importance of dialogue. That is why research, exchange and scholarships are important. That is why support for the development of civil society is important. And that is why increased political activity for the resolution of long-standing disputes is important. Military and security measures may at best cauterise the immediate sources of danger. But sustained and long-term action on many fronts is necessary if the causes of extremism are to be addressed effectively.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, it is quite a challenge to follow a speech of that order. This debate has been marked by the wisdom and insight, together with the courage, of a number of those who contributed.
We have so far heard three outstanding maiden speeches. Another speech—that of my noble friend Lord Ahmed—was particularly important because of the bravery it characterised. My noble friend left us in absolutely no doubt about what he saw, together with millions of others, as the essence and truth of Islam.
Tribute has been paid to many of those who responded so amazingly at the time of the grim events in New York, and to many of those who grappled with the aftermath. I should perhaps declare an interest as a former director of Oxfam and a member of the Oxfam Association, but I hope I shall be forgiven if I say that there is one group which I should like to be remembered on this occasion. I refer to the humanitarian workers in and around Afghanistan who, with determination, are selflessly demonstrating everything that we say our society is about. I hope that our thoughts will be there with them also at this difficult time.
In saying that, I commend what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, said. In our humanitarian response we must think not only of the problem of Afghanistan itself and the refugees, but also of the burden on neighbouring states. In any strategy we devise on the humanitarian front, it must be one that looks to the region as a whole.
In the context of what I say without hesitation has been the measured and courageous leadership of our Prime Minister, certain principles have become very clear. The first is that we are living in an age when we can no longer speak about "national" interests as

191
though they were somehow separable from the international community as a whole. We can only look to the well-being of our people by strengthening international institutions and international action and by the part we play co-operatively in the global community as a whole. The old distinction between national interests and perhaps an international commitment is no longer relevant. We now live in an international global reality.
The second principle which has become very clear is that if we are making a stand for civilised values, everything we do must be compatible with those civilised values. There was a lot of cold calculation in the ruthless acts that took place. We must deny those who planned them the victories that they seek, one of which is to demonstrate that when we are under pressure the values of which we speak begin to disintegrate. Never is it more important to demonstrate those values than in the midst of a crisis such as this.
The third principle, which I believe is becoming very clear and which I find reassuring, is that we talk more and more about justice—not just the administration of justice in the law courts, but justice in its fullest sense. That is why it has been so vital to demonstrate, as the Prime Minister and others have done, that we have no argument with the ordinary people of Afghanistan. If we accuse their government of being implicated in international crime on a massive scale and describe that government as tyrannical and oppressive, we cannot at the same time be prepared to do anything that punishes those who suffer under that government. That point has become increasingly clear.
It is also becoming clear that, in the context of those other considerations, evidence is very important. The more evidence that is available the better. If we are talking about justice, we have to produce evidence that will stand up to investigation and analysis. Of course there are security dimensions. As a former defence Minister, I am the first to recognise that. It would be wanton irresponsibility to deny it. However, as much evidence as possible must be available.
Alongside all those points has been the developing, powerful commitment to the humanitarian campaign. We have to win people's hearts and minds. The demonstration of our humanitarian commitment to their needs is as important as any military action that we may be contemplating.
That brings me to the interesting and challenging speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. He is professionally expert in these areas of human behaviour and we must take seriously what he says. However, I ask him to consider one other political reality. One of the most difficult problems when dealing with terrorism or extremism is what I describe as the constituency of ambivalence that surrounds the terrorists. There are countless people who would not contemplate terrorist action themselves or who would be appalled by it if confronted with it immediately in their own situation but whose experience of life is so bad, having suffered oppression, deprivation and hopelessness, that sometimes they allow themselves to
192
be tempted into believing that the terrorist or extremist is fighting for them. That is the battle we have to win. We have to tackle the constituency of ambivalence and demonstrate that we can win those people to something that they feel is on their side.
That is why the Middle East is so important. I am sure that the noble Lord is right that dealing with the problems there will not of itself solve all the problems of terrorism, but the grotesque sense of injustice about what is happening in the Middle East creates a ripe recruiting ground for the extremists. That is why it is so important for us to be even-handed and to be able to demonstrate even-handedness, not in a wishy-washy way but in a muscular way. That is why I am glad that one result of the crisis is an openness in talking about the need for a Palestinian state.
However, I sense something else underlying all this. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me. I have spent most of my life in international work, so I see Britain not just as we like to see our country, but in the way that many of those with whom I have mixed and worked abroad see it. We are deluding ourselves if we do not face up to the growing resentment among intelligent people across the world at what they see as an increasing tendency for the affluent and powerful nations to want to manage the world in their way. We have to come to terms with that fact because it is central to winning the battle against terrorism.
We are coming up to a new trade round. Are we doing everything conceivably possible to ensure that the world's less wealthy nations will be adequately represented in those negotiations, that they will have at their disposal the same expertise that we have at ours and that their rights will be furthered every bit as much as our interests? That is central to the issues that concern us.
In his powerful speech, the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon, referred to the importance of the United Nations, not least because of the Russians. There is another reason why the UN matters. We have talked an awful lot in recent years about the European Union, NATO and the G7, but the majority of the world do not feel that they have a stake in those institutions. The UN represents global humanity, with all its inadequacies. That is why it is so important to have the authority of the UN behind what is done and to use the UN in every way possible. That means resourcing the UN, not just sentimentalising about it. We have to make sure that we give the necessary support to the Secretary General.
The international dimensions are not separate from the national issues. People look at Britain and ask whether we practise what we preach or whether we are just telling the rest of the world what we want them to do. That is why it will be important to see the Home Secretary's proposals for facing up to the new challenges. Of course things have to be done, but we shall have to look at his proposals carefully to ensure that they build up a picture of an enviable society and a model of what we believe that society should be about and do not undermine that objective.

193
Several noble Lords have referred to the importance of education. It cannot he over-emphasised. We have been too preoccupied in recent decades with the quantitative dimensions of education. We need to get back to the values and quality of education. In higher education, philosophy needs to play a far higher part in our university life than it is accorded at the moment. We need to discuss and be able to demonstrate what can be achieved by intellectual analysis, dialogue and discussion.
I hope that in all we do and however we do it, we shall not be ashamed of the principles that matter to us as individuals. We are sometimes a little defensive and feel that if we start talking about those principles we will seem wet or inadequate, so we end up talking about the tough management issues to make us feel important and relevant.
This crisis should bring home to us two principles that I am not ashamed to tell your Lordships matter to me deeply when I look at my own children and my grandson. I wish that we would talk more about peace. I wish that we would say that we are following tough policies overseas and at home to win the peace. We want peace in its fullest sense, because none of the other things that we talk about in terms of the fulfilment of personality will be possible without peace in that sense. I also hope that we can begin talking again about the creative power of love. As were others, I was struck that in the last moments, when people were dying a horrifying death, they took up their mobile phones and rang home with messages of love to their dear ones. I believe that it is love which is the real antidote to the hate and nihilism of the terrorists.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, we are all most concerned to restore to airline travellers the confidence that they once had. The Minister said in terms that we must do everything we can to ensure that such events do not happen again. The reason for my intervention in the previous debate was quite simple. I wished to have confirmation of the security arrangements in relation to the flight deck. Save in perhaps one case, the terrorists were able to force entry to the flight deck and then pilot with accuracy into the building the aeroplane which had become a flying bomb of enormous propensities. I asked for confirmation from the Minister, that it was only in the Israeli airline that the door to the flight deck was locked and bolted before the plane set off and remained so until it landed. There was a small hatch through which food was passed. But the instructions which were adhered to were that if a terrorist forced his way outside the flight door, and said, "If you don't open the door I will blow up the plane", the threat was ignored. I believe that there has been only one case where the Israeli process did not succeed.
The Minister very kindly said in his response when winding up that as regards the specific point put by me,
"Israeli airlines indeed operate a policy of locking the flight door and not opening it during the flight, irrespective of threats".—[Official Report, 14/9/01; col. 96.]
194
He very courteously offered to discover whether that only applied to Israeli airlines and in particular what was our position in the United Kingdom. With his characteristic courtesy and true to form, he wrote to me on 28th September a letter which I received the day before yesterday. He has put a copy of the letter in the Library so that I do not need to quote much from it. He said,
"Within the UK, airline operating standards and their regulatory oversight are the responsibility of the Safety Regulation Group (SRG) of the Civil Aviation Auhority (CAA)".
The letter continues,
"The CAA has been considering operating procedures, and, in particular, questions of access to the flight deck following an incident earlier this year involving a disturbed passenger on a flight to Nairobi. In the light of the recent attacks in America, the CAA has brought forward requirements on UK airlines, that it was considering as part of that work. Instructions were issued to all UK passenger airlines on 18 September. These lay down 12 requirements".
The Minister details four of them. The first is the locking of doors to the flight deck compartment. That sounds helpful. He goes on to refer to the restriction on the movement of the flight crew during flight. As I understand it, that shows that although the flight door may be locked it is opened from time to time in order that the crew may stretch their legs in every sense of that term. Food is provided by the stewardess going through the door which is unlocked to let her in.
I accept entirely that it is very inconvenient for the aircrew to be locked in the flight deck for the whole of the journey. The food position can be overcome, but other more complex arrangements may have to be made. But that inconvenience is a small price to pay for the added security of the Israeli airline where the locked door principle to which I have made reference has been almost 100 per cent. successful. I hope that the Government will stress to the CAA that the pilots must put up with the inconvenience.
My noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd of Berwick has pointed out that in his view that is a requirement that can be waved aside because intelligence would produce all that was required. But there is no incompatibility between improving on intelligence and improving physically the safety of the flight deck.
I spoke for five minutes on the previous occasion and I have spoken for only seven minutes now. I hope I can thus continue to ingratiate myself with your Lordships. In my more affluent days I had a tailor who used to say that judges shine most on their seats. I shall resume mine now.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, addressed the House about the airlines. I am not sure that the answer lies simply in the way that airline crews are closeted in their cabins. As I understand it, the Israelis also have sky marshals. That has to be considered by the airlines and trade unions concerned. As usual, we are greatly indebted to the noble and learned Lord for raising this important issue.

195
In common with other noble Lords, it is with an immensely heavy heart that I speak today in the wake of the profoundly tragic events which bring us together and on the brink of momentous decisions which have to be taken to continue to ensure the continued peace and freedom of civilised people everywhere. It is an enormous privilege to have heard from my noble friend Lord Judd and the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, who is not at present in the Chamber.
On a personal level, before I resume my remarks about the tragic events in New York and elsewhere, I am deeply sad, too, that we are missing Lord Shore of Stepney—Peter, as he was known to many of us. He wanted to be here; he wanted to make one of his usual distinguished contributions to our debates. He was my former Secretary of State and he was my friend. He collapsed just after speaking in the House before the Recess when a similar issue was being discussed. He died after a long and valiant struggle. He will be seriously and severely missed by many of us.
Today we face a nightmare scenario. There are threats of terror, of nuclear, germ or chemical warfare. To cause us to succumb is the objective of bin Laden, his associates and those who protect him. They seek to promote fear to weaken our resolve.
The terrorists are sophisticated. They demonstrated on 11th September that they possess the expertise to pervert ordinarily benign apparatus for a massively dangerous purpose. They care nothing for human life—least of all their own. That is why international solidarity is all important. In Europe and elsewhere, we must continue to build on the dialogue and the alliances that can firmly and vigorously challenge the new enemy in our modern world. The United States should be congratulated. In the face of intolerable provocation but without revengeful reaction, they are seeking to build a coalition in the civilised world.
At the same time, all of us need to try, to a far greater extent than ever before, to understand the culture of those who view the west with suspicion, or even hatred. We are not at war with Islam and it is not at war with us. Ninety-nine per cent of our Islamic fellow citizens are at one with those of differing faiths, and none, in the battle to eliminate terrorism and all that it stands for. I believe that that is the view of ordinary people in our country.
The Taliban, by their own admission, have vowed to destroy democratic values. They have no concept of equality or proportionality. They do not understand what these words mean. Women have no part in the everyday life of the Taliban—they have no rights to education or employment. They have no rights even over their own bodies. The Taliban do not speak for the majority of Muslim opinion.
The moderate Muslim world and others must recognise that the problem is far larger than the Israeli and Palestinian conflict. The Middle East struggle has to be resolved. The Palestinians must recognise Israel's right to be there—to exist. Equally, the Palestinians
196
have a right to self-determination. But, let us make no mistake, fanaticism will continue—Israel today; where else tomorrow?
Fatwas will extend from individuals to countries. None of us will be immune. Terror is not the prerogative of only one ideology or faith, as we know to our cost. Some western policies must be changed and I believe that our Government will be mindful of how and where we can help to bring that about. We have to move towards a fairer distribution of the world's bounty. It is necessary to recognise that there are people in the world who are poverty stricken. Terrorism is sometimes blind to that. The message that comes through from the United States Administration is not always helpful in that respect, but given good government and wise leadership, these issues can be resolved.
We need to reinforce our basic values and not to retreat from them. That is why, as my noble friend Lord Judd said, we need to scrutinise carefully the legislative proposals in this House as they might impinge on those values—values that many of us have sought to underline in this debate.
Those who perpetrated this atrocity attacked everything that every decent human being holds dear. We must learn from the tragedy and act upon it.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and to associate myself from this side of the House with his remarks on Lord Shore, who also happened to be a friend of mine.
In this debate, much has been said which requires no repetition. The Government have the unequivocal support of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and the Liberal Democrat Party, save as to domestic legislation requisite to implement such support, in particular for extradition and asylum, about which the Liberal Democrat Party has hoisted a danger cone, which in due course will engender discussion in Parliament.
Do not the speeches of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth have crucial input? How is terrorism to be defined? What is the strategy? What is the measured military aim? What is the order of withdrawal? What extra provision for expenditure will be announced for our overstretched Armed Forces? What is to be done about terrorism on our doorstep in Northern Ireland? Do not the suggestions of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde warrant the urgent attention of the Government? Without breaching security, if it is possible some response would be welcome.
Against that background, perhaps it may be said that it will take some time for the world to recover from the trauma of these waves of seismic shock and it will take months if not years to root out Al'Qaeda and international terrorism. Is it not plain, our common bond with America, our most profound sympathy, our admiration for the courage, resolve and resilience of

197
the American people, which has been acknowledged by the Queen and also by our Churches, mosques and other religious institutions and in this House?
The fortitude and restraint of President Bush under the ultimate provocation of a series of assassinations which would have astounded the assassins and the scale of material and economic destruction has been truly remarkable. Under his leadership of the United States of America, a coalition without precedent has been set up to deter, detect and contain further such terrorist attacks, not only by Al'Qaeda, as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, mentioned. By all means, it is an alliance which has the unqualified support of the Government and the Opposition which has to succeed and shall succeed. In particular, the support of Pakistan, Russia and other Islamic states and ethnic groups are of vital consequence and are welcome.
However, the attitude of Iraq is much to be regretted. Whether by accident or design, the area of conflict over which that massive naval presence stands guard could widen and escalate into war in the Middle East, which is not the purpose of the alliance. A massive resort to arms is not envisaged and the hope must be that such a situation does not arise. But the tinder is there. We now know that the case against bin Laden and the Taliban has been established to the satisfaction of the United Nations and NATO, which has joined the alliance.
The alliance envisages a long-term campaign, implemented by selected specific armed operations with the broad approval of the United Nations, NATO and the international community. Armed intervention against the Taliban would be such an operation. In the planning of such an operation, account has been taken to provide shelter, food and medical care for the refugees as the humanitarian aspect of that situation. The House has been assured of that in some detail and one naturally accepts that assurance.
The 11th September served as an augury of ill omen for the safe conduct of the world. There is the overwhelming justification for armed intervention against the Taliban to destroy bin Laden's organisation, apprehend bin Laden, destroy the poppy crops used by him to fund international terrorism and debilitate and undermine the West, and destroy the stockpile (about 3,000 tonnes) from the millions of acres of poppy fields under the control of the Taliban, worth about £20 billion on the market and available to fund further attacks by the organisation. Bin Laden is sheltered by the Taliban as a safe haven and it is much to be doubted whether he is an unwelcome guest as the Taliban support what I would call the fatwa jihad, referred to by my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford, and is prepared for such a war but only in the hope of support from Islamic states and organisations.
Under public international law there is the legitimate entitlement on the evidence referred to by the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House to resort to armed intervention in self-defence to prevent future attacks and destabilisation of the West with
198
drugs, crime and money laundering. It is a legitimate act of self-defence, not a punitive reprisal for 11th September. The Taliban is not a state and it is not recognised by the government of Afghanistan. Who shall govern Afghanistan after the armed intervention remains to be seen. We support the Afghan people but what shall be grown in the poppy fields instead of the poppy crops which fuel these funds?
At present, these poppy crops are the means of subsistence of the people. Ancient customs of war meant that you did not destroy the vines but the vines could not be used as means of aggression for further attack—or to supply 80 per cent of the drugs market of the world. Does not one again revert to the questions of the noble and gallant Lord and seek some answers? What shall be grown in those fields? Who shall govern the people? What is the military aim and the time for withdrawal? It was suggested by the right reverend Prelate that the appropriate disposal of this could be United-Nations sponsored and, with respect, that does not seem at all a bad idea.
All religions have zealots and extremists but few believe that in committing suicide to assassinate others they do the will of God to receive their reward in heaven. As my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford said, historically the Islamic regime is essentially tolerant and benign, at all events compared with the excesses of Christians committed against each other and against others. Assuredly this is no confrontation with Israel or the people of Afghanistan.
Diplomacy, as we have heard today from the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, has already had a truly remarkable success and is in the process of continuing at this very moment. It is the cornerstone of the alliance and shall continue as such. Already steps have been taken: national and international shared intelligence and security; extradition and asylum proposals; money laundering—freezing assets and bureaux de change; and so forth.
But surely the main achievement would be to safeguard the integrity of Israel and found a Palestinian state, having set up a dialogue such as that referred to by the right reverend Prelates, the Bishops of London and Rochester; an alliance of those of many faiths, according to their creed, to oppose international terrorism in the concept of a universal God, and of what is good and what is evil.
Irrespective of whether we are about to enter some "new world", as envisaged in the Revelations of St. John, is it not plain that in the course of time the purpose of this alliance shall be achieved, and shall be achieved not only by resort to arms?
4.41 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords,
"they shall not see who hurts them".
Those are the last words of the Mounteagle letter, giving warning to Parliament of the gunpowder plot. They are a reminder that there is nothing new about terrorism. It is also very clear indeed that ever since 5th November 1605 terrorism has done a great deal more to unite Parliament than to divide it. That is because it

199
is an assault on precisely those values which we have most completely in common; an assault on what makes us a House.
For that reason it is tempting to spend a long time testifying to one's feelings about terrorists. However, there is a long list of speakers; we are among friends; and I hope that I shall be understood if I confine myself to one single story about the day that the IRA bombing campaign of the Tube began. I was bringing my two and-a-half year old son back from his nursery. We had just got onto the Tube at Tottenham Court Road when it was announced that a bomb had been found at Oxford Circus. It was not known how many more bombs there might be around the line and all trains were being held while they were searched.
Into a silence in which you could have heard a pin drop, a small voice floated up from my knee, "By the way, daddy, what is a bomb?" That boy is now the holder of a post-graduate degree in strategic studies. He has just produced his first serious publication on the verification process for some of the disarmament agreements of the seventies. I regard that as an intelligent response to a real threat.
One interesting point, to which the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, drew attention, is the change in the military balance between official and unofficial force. I was interested in the noble Lord's remark about the miniaturisation of weapons. Exactly the same thing happened in the late 16th century with the invention of the portable and concealable pistol, as William the Silent discovered to his cost.
This is a significant shift in the balance between official and unofficial force, between the state and the forces of disorder. When that has happened before, it has diminished the importance of states and increased the importance of causes. The whole history of the late period of the Reformation illustrates that very clearly. It creates an internationalisation of conflict in which the relations between states become of less relevance, both to the problems and to the solutions. When one finds an Algerian being trained on the Kidbrooke Estate in south London for an act of terrorism in the United States by an organisation based in Afghanistan and taking orders from a Saudi, one cannot help but wonder whether the nation state really has a particularly large part in the remedy, or whether it is like trying to drill one's way through living rock with the aid of a plastic bucket and spade.
I entirely understand why this issue has made the Prime Minister think in international terms, not only of the European Union, but also of the United Nations and of other international organisations. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, about the United Nations was well taken. It is a world in which national sovereignty seems a good deal less relevant than it did before 11th September.
I was also interested in the remarks of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, about how misleading it is to talk about the struggle against terrorism as a war, and his warning about ill-directed, punitive action. On Tuesday, there was an extremely
200
interesting article in The Times by Professor Sir Michael Howard, a former Regius professor, not the former Home Secretary, and, incidentally, the former head of the department of war studies at King's College, London. He said:
"Today we are threatened by a transnational conspiracy; not against any specific national or imperial authority, but against the entire international order. In dealing with it the rhetoric and expectations of 'war' are counter-productive and much military experience irrelevant."
Therefore, if we think in terms of victory we may really be missing the point. What my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby had to say about hearts and minds is a great deal more relevant.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, rightly drew attention to the fact that the currency of a struggle against terrorism is intelligence. In dealing with intelligence, it is absolutely vital to have the sympathy of what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, called the constituency of ambivalence. So a great many of the techniques have more in common with the fighting of an election campaign, which, after all, we are supposed to know something about, than they do with the techniques of war.
I heard also what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London said about the apocalyptic terror. The right reverend Prelate is right about that. Those who, like one of the 17th century Fifth Monarchists, talk about "the military officers of the Lamb", tend to be beyond reach of dialogue. My noble friend Lord Alderdice, with whom I have had some conversation and will have a great deal more, was absolutely right about this issue. But the person who got this right was King James VI and I who directed in the propaganda sermons on the gunpowder plot that what must be done was to separate out the moderates from the extremists; to address the constituency of ambivalence; to assume their loyalty; and to address their misgivings. The history of the treatment of Roman Catholics since the gunpowder plot shows that we did not get that right and we are still paying for it.
On the day that the news of the gunpowder plot reached Bishop Auckland everyone in the village lit a bonfire to celebrate the king's deliverance. One woman was out shopping. While she was out, her children lit a fire inside the house. A neighbour told her what had happened. She rushed back and got it put out. But she happened to be a Roman Catholic. One of her Protestant neighbours informed on her for failing to have a bonfire to celebrate the king's deliverance. The authorities did not believe her story and she died in prison. I do not know whether her children turned into conspirators. If they did, that is the sort of thing we ought to have expected. One should be careful not to overreact and behave in a way that produces extremists where there would be none otherwise.
As to Ireland, I have seen a 17th century order that any trees within 100 yards of the River Bann should be cut down because they provided cover for snipers. The disease has a deep hold. It may be easier now in some

201
other places to separate moderates from extremists—but no more so than 300 years ago which is when we should have started.
It is peculiarly stupid as well as unfortunate that we are facing attacks on not only British Muslims but also Hindus and Sikhs. I was talking at the Liberal Democrat conference to a council leader from one of our great northern cities. He spoke about a friend of his who entered the local post office and was spat upon. That friend happens to be an American. Irony cannot get much deeper.
Charles Kennedy was right. The root of the evil is hatred of diversity, which is something we all have to overcome because diversity is with us to stay. Mercifully, hatred does not appear to have taken hold in my own borough of Brent where the English happen to be a racial minority—and that is very good for us. The English are the fourth racial group in the area after the Irish, Afro-Caribbeans and Asians.
I have one or two misgivings but I do not want it thought that I am expressing misgivings about the Government's handling of the issue as a whole. A great deal has been done right. It will not surprise Ministers to know that my misgivings relate principally to asylum. Mr. Blunkett wants to deport people who are guilty of or suspected or terrorism. I am anxious about people being "suspected" of terrorism. After all, the Home Office is a suspicious body. With Roman Catholics, the authorities knew that suspicion was not enough so they decided that Roman Catholics could be arrested provided they were vehemently suspected. I can imagine that phrase catching on in the Home Office.
It is open to question whether Article 1.5 of the United Nations Convention on Refugees already provides sufficient protection. If it does, UK legislation is unnecessary. If it does not, I wonder whether new legislation is anyway justified. I remain absolutely and entirely unrepentant about the protection that we gave during the 1960s and 1970s to members of the African National Congress. I shall not enter into argument over whether there is any natural right to change one's government. That is not a constructive question. Under any circumstances in recorded history, there have always been people who wanted a change of government. If they did not have any legal means, they tended to use illegal means. In times past they included people who removed monarchs of this country. Where there is no legal right to remove a government, can we treat that in exactly the same way as a body such as ETA, which could remove a government through the ballot box if only it knew how to set about winning—which clearly it does not.
I was concerned by the Prime Minister's remarks on "Breakfast with Frost" last Sunday when he spoke of claiming a power to detain asylum seekers suspected of terrorist links and to deport them automatically, without right of appeal. Again, I do not see how one can reconcile a power to detain on suspicion with the European Convention on Human Rights fair trial provision or with the UN convention. There is a
202
requirement enshrined in any document one chooses to look at—from the 1951 UN convention back to Magna Carta—of due process, which is part of natural justice. It has never been determined in the courts, so far as I know, how far—if at all—a statute is capable of overriding the principles of natural justice. The principle that one interprets a statute according to the intentions of Parliament goes back before there were any reported parliamentary debates. One interpreted the statute according to the basic principles of common law as one knew it.
I have an uncorrected transcript of a case involving the Home Office in November 1996 but I have checked the passage that I will quote with the noble and learned Lord. It was stated in the case that if Parliament wishes to confer a power to act unfairly, it must say so in express words. That is not something I see Parliament being in a great hurry to do. If we want to enter that particular territory, we may find ourselves entering a deeper legal thicket than the Prime Minister realised at the moment of speaking.
The present Prime Minister has done a great deal to improve the quality of legal advice available to the Government. I hope that he will continue to do so on that point.
4.57 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, today is one of those occasions when it is safe to say, "I wish I were not here". I remember looking at the seemingly endless heights of the World Trade Centre on my first visit to New York nearly 18 years ago and a cousin of mine speaking proudly about it. The symbolic character of its tragic demise, in which 7,000 people from 62 countries perished, cannot be over-estimated.
Following the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London speaking on behalf of a city that has known terrorism, I want to give a couple of Portsmouth perspectives. We have an unusually small proportion of ethnic and religious minorities, which therefore places good relations at a premium. The evening after "Terrifying Tuesday", as I believe it is still called in New York, the dean of our cathedral went to prayer in the local mosque. Such gestures and the relationships that they express and foster will become more and more important in other parts of the country where there are sizeable Muslim communities, to encourage better understanding and prevent the escalation of unthinking and ill-informed behaviour, which can so easily spill over into violence on our streets. That is particularly so if the present conflict is going to be long lasting.
Another Portsmouth dimension is the presence in the Gulf of 24 ships and two submarines in the Saif Sareea exercise, which has been planned for some time. I am told that although there are contingency plans for a possible future conflict, as in any other naval exercise, that is not primarily why those naval vessels are off the coast of Oman at present. Regrettably, there has been some heightened tension among those at training establishments—although things have settled down.

203
I cannot help observing that some public comments and reporting in recent days have not been entirely helpful to the families concerned. We are sometimes told to "globalise our compassion" and to see certain tragedies, including that of three weeks ago, in the wider perspective of others. We need to globalise that compassion in relation to our service families and to show some signs of that rather elusive virtue—restraint.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, suggested, there is a real need to understand why these events have happened. An internal cooling system needs to operate underneath the revulsion which we all naturally feel. Among its mechanisms could be, first, education—which is not the same as indoctrination—including religious education which is balanced, such as already has to take place in many of our Church schools. Secondly, as was pointed out by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London both today and in the debate on 14th September, there should be a recognition that religion persists in being an integral part of the world-wide scene and is not to be easily dismissed as backward and merely irrational. Thirdly, there should be a recognition of religion as comprising ancient ways of life that are not to be patronisingly swept aside in the interests of catching up with the rest of us. Fourthly, there must be recognition that 11th September marks the end of an era in which many of us thought, through the 90s, that the world was moving towards a more or less unified civilisation, whereas diversity is a fact of life in all its inconvenient variations, as was pointed out by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd.
But more than all those factors, belief of whatever kind, not just religious, needs constantly to have a critique, not in order to deconstruct it, but to strengthen its foundations, remove its weaknesses, and to help it to retain its essential characteristics and move on to new terrain. There is an inbuilt tension in every single religious, philosophical and, I dare say, political and economic system.
All three major world religions have a noble tradition of critique and interpretation which, at best, can be most impressive in its workings and results, including for those whose beliefs are not religious but ethical, economic or to do with lifestyle. Sometimes, tragically, that critique has to be won by conflict rather than by genteel conversation. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, for his contribution to the debate. However, we must hold on to the view that religiously-motivated terrorism is an affront to sacred texts.
I want to comment on the expression "strategic patience". Today is the day when many Christians celebrate St Francis of Assisi, who died on this day in 1226. Among the many sayings attributed to him is one which probably does come from the horse's mouth:
"Sanctify yourself and you will sanctify society".
I am sure that your Lordships will see the point of that remark, even if its religious base is not shared by all.
204
We need to look carefully at our domestic affairs at this time in order to make them commensurate with the stand we are taking internationally. That means, for example, having a well thought-out, clearly understood immigration policy—which we do not have at present—and an asylum system which quickly identifies the genuine from the non-genuine and confuses neither with the genuine, not the suspected, terrorist. That is particularly important in terms of perceptions in the public eye as well as with regard to the internal workings of the system. As the son of an MI6 officer who did not do terribly interesting work interviewing escaped prisoners of war in Stockholm during the war—about which he kept his mouth shut when I was a boy—I welcome the wise words in the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, about identity cards, the workings of intelligence systems and how we can be more open than we are at present.
But "strategic patience" means more. It means cherishing the truth that no event is inevitable—however long it has been waiting to happen—precisely because of the creative capacities, including imagination, which we possess by virtue of our free will. Free will allows us to behave responsibly as well as irresponsibly. As I try to understand why those men flew those aeroplanes into those buildings, I do not want the process to end with a shrug of a shoulder and the shedding of some tears.
I shall go further. I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, in her eloquent speech at the start of the debate. I refer to her remarks about bringing good out of evil. It is a fundamental tenet of the Christian faith that nothing is irredeemable. There are times when that faith falters but, as has so often been the case in the past, new life somehow emerges, which many people dare to ascribe to the strategic patience of God, however we worship and serve, celebrate and mourn—and continue to live.
5.5 p.m.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, three weeks after the tragic events in America on 11th September, we, the British Muslims, are still reeling from the aftershock. Scenes of the collapse of the twin towers of the World Trade Centre took with it the confidence of the Muslim community living as citizens of the world.
Sadly, it is only now that one becomes aware that a substantial number of those who died in that appalling terrorist tragedy were Muslims. Estimates from rescue workers in New York put the figure as high as over 1,000. Many Muslim families were among those mourning the death of their loved ones in this heinous act.
Contrary to the comments made yesterday to The Times by a former Prime Minister and once great champion of the movement that led to the Taliban government in Afghanistan, the vast majority of British Muslims and their brethren throughout the world have categorically condemned the horrendous act of terrorism inflicted on America.

205
It is beyond tolerance and acceptance that the Muslims who have no truck with violence and terror are asked again and again to assure loyalty. Shia and Sunni, scholars and laymen, men and women, in private and public have been loyal. The vast majority of Muslims throughout the world have not minced their words or their actions in the condemnation of the attacks. British Muslims and Muslim countries have been in the forefront in expressing their shock and horror and in reflecting on the tragedy.
For the past few weeks, mosques up and down the country have been performing special prayers for those who have died and those who are grieving. At the same time we are also praying for patience, understanding, tolerance and eradication of such evil from our midst.
My Lords, 11th September changed the nature of global solidarity and politics. A British Foreign Office Minister visited Iran. The President of the United States took off his shoes and entered a mosque. Inside he told the American people and the world, "Islam means peace". He spoke in prime time before the joint union of the Senate and the House of Representatives and said that terrorists not only hijack planes but attempt also to "hijack Islam". According to many independent observers, it was the day that marked the transition of the USA from being a mere superpower to perhaps being seen to be a courageous, fair leader and nation
On 14th September, in an address to the House the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, told British Muslims and Muslims throughout the world in no uncertain terms that it was not Islam or the Muslims that caused this terror. The Prime Minister also reiterated that point when, together with the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, and others and alongside a number of organisations, I met him at Downing Street. The Prime Minister has raised the value and confidence of the British Muslim community. I believe that he has demonstrated leadership and authority in putting forward a calm, measured approach to the atrocities. The joint comments of solidarity and understanding by President Bush and Tony Blair will be noted and remembered, particularly by the 20 million Muslims living as citizens of the West. The racist elements within our society need more than statements to contain their hatred and bigotry. I am proud, therefore, that our Government are to introduce legislation to combat religious hatred and discrimination. That is much awaited and a victory for those who believe in fairness and the ideals of freedom, justice and tolerance that we all seek to share.
I should like to comment on the current position of the media. Coverage of the event was far from equal or effective. However, the recent restraint and responsibility of the mainstream media are much to be welcomed. In Islam, as with other great religions, we are taught to look for the positive even in the worst situation and that even among the evil that drowns us there is a current trend that gives us all hope.
In the past three weeks, the British Muslim community has emerged onto the nation's consciousness as never before. Long invisible and
206
marginalised in most efforts at social inclusion and regeneration, it is now time for policy makers and government to take stock of present and future initiatives.
A briefing paper by the Centre for Muslim Policy Research, CMPR, a London-based think-lank on Muslim affairs, inquires, rightly, what the new community order will mean for the 2 million Muslim community in Britain, many of whom are at the bottom of the ladder of every government statistic collected, whether on education, housing, access to employment or other initiatives. I have mentioned that on many occasions, but today is not the day to elaborate.
Events in New York and Washington have been a baptism by fire of British Muslims. Buoyed up by the rightful recognition extended to them finally by the political establishment, one cannot expect the largest sector of the country's visible minorities to return to their excluded boxes. The response of all of us who are active in community relations in the coming weeks, months and years, must include empowerment and an enabling of the proper leadership which exists within the grass roots of our community up and down the land—and I do not mean some of the leadership thus far demonstrated in several broadsheet newspapers as "coming from the community". We in this House must urge the Government to ensure that leadership is not allowed to languish in the hands of a few male leaders—I hesitate to make any divisive comment—who have no base or credibility within the community.
I am pleased to say that during the past few weeks searching questions have been asked at all sections of government corridors about the longer term effect of the attack in America. As was said earlier, this is indeed an opportunity to address and redefine the social exclusion agenda, which often has not included those stuck at the bottom of the statistics I mentioned earlier. Public policies must examine how their impact can help include the marginalised British Muslims into the social cohesion to which we all aspire.
The Centre for Muslim Policy Research is of the opinion that the integration of Britain's 2 million Muslims should now be a top priority for the Government. I agree. The centre has suggested a number of measures which I should like to share with the House. The first is that government departments and policy makers from all authorities should make a commitment to engage in a serious dialogue—with practical actions to back it up—with the Muslim communities and not only with the leaders that I have mentioned. This dialogue must be inclusive and transparent. For it to be meaningful, the dialogue must be primarily with the grass roots community and leadership. It must also reflect the richness and diversity of the Muslim communities, which hitherto has not necessarily been apparent.
More significantly, we must ensure the presence of women in meaningful positions and visible authority—and not only in the House of Lords. I believe that it will be women who will inevitably take the brunt of the peace building, as they have taken the

207
brunt of attacks up and down the country. I have been going around with the Home Office community review team, and up and down the country—in the north of England as well as in the south—the number of reported attacks on women has been unacceptable. However, I wish to say that it has been reported that the police have acted very promptly in dealing with some of them.
Secondly, there is a need to focus on education. Both the national curriculum and the environment in which education is provided need to be evaluated and challenged if necessary. Schools must be the primary source of providing the relevant education essential for the emergence of civil society.
Thirdly, indirect forms of anti-Muslim discrimination and "Islamophobia" must be identified and appropriately combated. Immediate action is needed to ensure that Muslim communities are not bypassed in government initiatives aimed at social inclusion. This is very significant. More important steps need to be taken to incorporate Muslims into public life. The aim is to access the community into mainstream and vice versa. The lack of British Muslims in public jobs is incredibly glaring. The appointment of a few into insignificant positions smells of tokenism—certainly that is how it is seen outside—and it is no longer acceptable because there are so many qualified and competent people around. It is important that the community itself feels that it has a stake in the changes that are required of it.
I have listened to a number of speeches during the debate—I am sorry that I have not been able to attend all of it—and the contributions of some noble Lords have made me immensely proud. I never thought I would live to see the day when, in a British Parliament, on the Floor of the House, an American president would be quoted as asking for the state of Palestine to be considered, or that I would witness noble Lords talking about justice for the Palestinian people.
I thank noble Lords for their patience in regard to some of my hesitancy. I am proud of what has been said today and of some of the stands that have been taken.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Bhatia: My Lords, the event of 11th September was one of the worst terrorist events in the recent history of the world. It was a tragedy which took about 6,000 innocent civilian lives. But, as the details have emerged, it is becoming clear that many families have been scarred, perhaps forever. It is estimated that some 10,000 children have lost a parent. This event is clearly terrorism at its worst and must be dealt with as an attack on democracy and humanity, and the terrorists must be brought to justice.
The coalition needs to move forward resolutely but cautiously, with sadness rather than in anger. The target should be the terrorists and not innocent civilians. The coalition's primary objective should be to bring the terrorists to justice. In the civilised world in which we live, delivery of justice is not in the hands
208
of the government or of the police but in the hands of courts of law. If the coalition acts in any different way, we will have lost the higher moral ground. If the coalition kills innocent civilians and does not bring the terrorists to justice, there will be little difference between the terrorists and us.
I also should like to pay tribute to the mature leadership provided by our Prime Minister on the world stage. He has not only worked very hard by helping to build a coalition but has managed to convince the coalition of the need to plan, gather intelligence and avoid the temptation in anger indiscriminately to resort to arms. The whole vocabulary has changed in the past three weeks. The coalition is talking more about justice than about revenge; there are more concerns about civilians and what the Afghans have suffered over the past 22 years; and, lastly, reasoned consideration has been given to refugees, destabilisation of the neighbouring countries and the severe food shortages in Afghanistan. The coalition and certainly this country owe a debt to our Prime Minister for his statesmanship and the leadership he has given to deal with the horrifying effects of international terrorism and its undermining of the foundations of our democracy.
I should like to raise some issues of which we need to be aware and how we can avoid or minimise the damage to innocent people. First, there is the issue of demonising the faith of Islam. Islam is a religion of peace and justice and does not condone indiscriminate acts of violence. The Holy Qur'an states:
"Verily, Allah commands justice and benevolence … and He forbids obscenity and deeds and oppression. He cautions you that you may take heed".
It is essential, therefore, to separate the terrorists from the religion of Islam, and it is reassuring that the Prime Minister and the President of the USA have recognised and emphasised this distinction.
Muslims the world over and particularly in this country and in the USA have shown their sorrow and distress over the events of 11th September. There are over a billion Muslims in the world and they form about a quarter of the world population. Closer to home some 435 million Muslims live in the Commonwealth forming about 25 per cent of its population. Those are large numbers of people and therefore our Government and, indeed, the coalition partners should protect, respect and respond to the fears and frustrations of Muslim communities.
There are some 2 million Muslims who live in the United Kingdom who currently live in fear. Those of us who are close to our communities are aware of the huge numbers of verbal and physical attacks they have suffered since 11th September. I may add that hardly 1 per cent of such incidents are reported. It is important that the Government and the police create a climate of calm and support for the Muslim community in the UK and state clearly that the full force of law will be applied quickly and effectively to those who break the law. I was happy to hear that the Home Secretary is in the process of revising the present legislation to ensure that Muslims are protected under the law in the same manner as those of other faiths.

209
I recommend that the Home Secretary consults key Muslim organisations such as the Muslim Council of Britain, the Bradford Council of Mosques, FAIR and other important organisations to ensure that the amendments to the legislation will help and protect Muslim communities.
Secondly, as regards the media and its role, the superficial and often misleading way in which the media treat Islam needs to change. Islam is little understood or not understood at all in the West. In these difficult times the media need to be aware of the sentiments of Muslims and to stop demonising the world of I slam. The words "Muslim or Islamic terrorist" have gained common currency, totally ignoring the fact that the vast majority of Muslims across the world condemn such acts of terrorism and want no part of them. The media therefore need to play their part more constructively and thoughtfully. We need to accept and understand that there are terrorists in all faiths and countries and that they have to be dealt with under the laws of the land. Over many, many years the democratic world has brought freedom to its citizens on the foundation of the rule of law and justice knowing that only the rule of law will ensure freedom, justice and democracy. In the past hundred years it is in the West that the world has witnessed some of the worst kinds of atrocities, such as the Second World War, the Holocaust and the recent ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia. In all three cases attempts have been made to bring the culprits to the courts. Therefore, it is incumbent that the media instead of demonising Islam should focus on bringing terrorists everywhere to justice.
Thirdly and lastly. I wish to highlight the plight of Afghan civilians. The bulk of the civilians of Afghanistan have endured some 22 years of war and strife. There is nothing left in that country. As a reporter recently said, there is nothing to bomb there. Most of the buildings, houses and infrastructure have been destroyed. Starvation is never far away. Some 7 million Afghans are near starvation level today and many millions are on the move to neighbouring countries as refugees. Not only will those refugees suffer but they have the potential to destabilise the countries which give them asylum. Unless the coalition proceeds cautiously with clearly defined short and long-term objectives, it will find that in solving one problem it will have created new and possibly even more dangerous problems with far-reaching consequences for the whole region. The billions that are being spent to deal with terrorism may be justified but more resources need to be allocated to the current disaster relief and to the long-term development of Afghanistan. DfID under the Secretary of State, Clare Short, should be given the resources required to undertake that work.
I finish by quoting Oxfam of which I was a trustee until last year. I am currently a member of its association. It states:
"The situation is so difficult because it is a combination of disasters, a war on top of a war, worsened by a three year drought and it will be compounded by the arrival of winter. Aid agencies alone cannot tackle this. Without a massive international effort now, just keeping people alive will be beyond us. Airlift of food
210
aid might already be out of the question. To feed 6 million people, we would need more than 125 flights of Hercules airplanes each day. This might be mathematically possible, but unlikely to happen because civilian planes cannot fly in a war zone. Everywhere we turn, there are huge problems and difficult choices. The situation in Afghanistan is unlike anything we have seen before. Oxfam hits called for sufficient food to reach both government and opposition held areas before the onset of winter. Trucking seems to be the best option. Borders must be opened immediately. Refugee camps must be screened to ensure they remain civilian, secure and adequately provisioned. Attention must be given to the special needs of women".
Justice calls for rooting out the terrorists and bringing them to courts of law. Humanity calls for compassion and pleads for urgent humanitarian aid. The coalition has the capacity to make that happen and must not fail.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, we are fortunate in this House that we have those who have given great service to this country and who now serve here and who are themselves Muslims, three of whom have spoken in the past few minutes. I express our appreciation to my very dear noble friend Lord Ahmed and to my good noble friends Lady Uddin and Lord Bhatia for their contributions to our debate in which they made it absolutely plain that there is no difference at all between any of us, whatever our religions, faiths, beliefs or politics, as to the tragedies that have recently occurred.
Indeed, the leaders of the Muslim communities in this country have all expressed the same sentiments. It was a little tactless, even if it was to be expected, that a certain lady took another view publicly yesterday. It is wrong but we know that the press will always focus on those who make extremist demands, remarks and attacks because that is news, while the remarks of those who speak as our noble friends have done are not news because they are decent and that is to be expected.
I know the Muslim community in this country very well and am proud to be friends with so many of them. I know also that it is desperately wrong to stigmatise the Muslims of this country because of the extremist remarks and actions of a tiny marginalised minority whether or not they operate out of a mosque. We should be proud of the good community relations in this country. I say that not only as a parliamentarian who worked and served for many years in the city of Leicester where we have a substantial minority of Asians. Indeed, it is estimated that by 2010 it will be the first city in the country with an Asian majority. I also serve as a leader of the Jewish community and as a vice-president of the World Jewish Congress. I identify with the victims of the current attacks on the Muslim community. I condemn the attacks not only from a sense of morality but also because I recognise that Jewish people have too often been submitted to precisely the same attacks when they have been blamed for certain events.
I also recognise that if the far right does well and becomes—as it has done in some parts of the country—not marginalised but regarded as

211
mainstream and if the British National Party or other nazi or fascist parties gain strength because of attacks on the Muslims today, it will be the turn of the Jews tomorrow. As Pastor Niemöller told us, next it will be the Catholics, the democrats or the decent, civilised way in which we govern our country. I point that out plainly to my Jewish community which has much in common with the Muslims here. The Muslims may say, "Oh well, at least some of the flak is being directed towards the Jews, the Israelis and the Jewish state. If it is them, it will take some of the heat off us". I say: do not believe that for a moment. If those people attack the Jews, then you will be next.
I say to my Jewish community that I am pleased that none of them has said, "Thank God it's the Muslims being attacked and not us". To the best of my knowledge, no one in any position of authority or, indeed, anyone I have met has taken that view. That is because we have learned that any attack on a minority is an attack on all minorities. In our community and happily in the Muslim community, we have a leadership that is central and understands what is going on—leadership that knows that, in the case of Muslims and Jews, the great Abrahamic faiths which come from the same origins, must work and live together. If we do not live together then we shall die together. I believe that that approach is vital. Far from following the view expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, I congratulate the large number of Muslim leaders, both lay and cleric, who have spoken out. Most of them have not been reported because it is not news.
The spillover from this event and from the Middle East is one that is very dangerous for our communities and our society in this country. I take exception that, so soon after Israel's Prime Minister Barak offered to the Palestinians so much—97 per cent of the land which originally they did not want to occupy and which they would be pleased to leave if they could reach an agreement—it was refused. But whatever our views on the Middle East, they must not be allowed to spill over into ill will in this country. As I said to my son when he joined the Conservative Party, it is a free country and everyone is entitled to be wrong.
In this House people are entitled to be wrong, to disagree and to argue. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and I debated against each other in the United States when we were somewhat younger than we are today. We were both recent graduates from Cambridge. We have been friends ever since. We may disagree, but we are friends. That reflects the decency of this land and this civilisation. Wherever I travel, I come back here and say, "Oh, I am so pleased to be back".
That has particularly been the case recently. I attended the so-called United Nations conference against racism in Durban, which turned into a racist conference. I have never seen anything like it. I was on the street when around 10,000—alas—Muslims paraded and passed out literature the like of which I have not seen since the days of Hitler. Indeed, one paper portrays a picture of Hitler and states, "What if
212
I had won? The good thing is that there would be no Israel and no Palestinian blood shed. The rest is your guess". In other words, no Jews would be left in the world. We have to be so careful. They recognise this in South Africa and it is extremely serious. We have not witnessed such events here, but we must beware.
In my view, it is for the Jewish community to ensure that it does not attack the Muslim community or Muslim people, and it is for Muslims to ensure that they do not attack the Jewish community or Jewish people. It is for us, within our own communities, to try to promote understanding, friendship and the recognition of differences between us, as well as the right to be different. It is not for others to do so. Not long ago I recall that a black anti-Semitic leader was due to come to this country from the United States. No, it was not Farakhan. However much I may deplore the decision in the Farakhan case, this man was able to come over. I met a black leader who is still well known. He asked me what I wanted him to do about the man. I said, "That is for you to decide. If it is a Jew who is a racist, that is a problem for me and I shall deal with it. But if it is an Afro-Caribbean or black man who is a racist, as is the case here, it is for you to deal with it through your community". I am pleased that he did so. The unwanted visitor got as far as Liverpool where he addressed a small meeting. His London meetings were cancelled and he went home. I believe that it is for each community to deal with its own people and to ensure that racist material redolent of Hitler is not published. Community leaders should remember that if evil practices are allowed to start, they tend to grow. Once such a movement has begun, it can be very difficult to stop.
My other recent visit took place two weeks ago to Latvia and Lithuania where all my family who did not escape, principally to the United Kingdom, are in the mass graves. Those graves are set off the roads. The victims were marched into the woods where the Nazis and their local associates dug a pit. The people were shot and then buried. The locals hoped that everyone would forget about those victims. They are not doing too badly because most of the mass graves—there are 220 of them in Lithuania—cannot be found without a guide. I am pleased to tell the House that the presidents of both Latvia and Lithuania agreed to my request that they would be patrons of a project to signpost those graves from the road. That project is now under way.
I recall standing by one of the mass graves. I was told that 17,500 people had been buried there. I thought of the 7,000 or so people murdered in the New York tragedy. The newspaper headlines stated that the world has changed. When 17,500 people were murdered and put into one mass grave, no one took the slightest notice of it and nothing changed. Some good might come from this latest misery because when fewer have been murdered than in the Baltics, we recognise that, if the world has not changed, then we must work very hard together—Muslims, Jews and everyone else—to change it for the better.
5.37 p.m.
Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, before I commence my remarks I should declare two interests. First, I am the head of the Order of St Lazarus of Jerusalem, which works in the Middle East for the relief of leprosy and other evils. Secondly, I am an independent, non-executive director of Sky. I am chairman of the compliance committee which seeks to ensure that the company is conducted in line with the appropriate laws and regulations.
Today's debate is a further fulfilment of Parliament's duty to express the mind of the nation. It expresses it today on one of the most dangerous challenges that we have faced since the dark days of 1940. The last three speeches from the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, and my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Janner, demonstrate the valuable work done in such a debate and what this institution is capable of achieving. I have been debating with the noble Lord, Lord Janner, over a period of 50 years. We have never entirely agreed, but I welcome the sincerity and concern with which he has spoken. En particular he mentioned the United Nations conference on racism. How I wish that, instead of wasting its time on such an inflated concept, the UN had held a conference on refugees and thus sought to introduce joint action throughout the world on agreed principles in order to meet the needs of this tragic situation.
We have heard many well-informed speeches full of insight. I do not intend to repeat them or attempt to compete with them. I want to make a few remarks on the ethical principles which may help to guide us through the present perplexities. Clearly this will be a long and complex struggle. The most important thing that will help us will be if we sustain our moral position and that of the grand alliance and keep that happy conjunction working together. That will not be done by what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London stigmatised as "secular materialism"; rather, it will be done by drawing on the riches of our Western tradition.
Personally, I speak out of a tradition which over the centuries, while not the only contribution, has been a vitally important one to the moral consensus. I speak, of course, of Catholic Christianity. Pacifism is an honoured tributary of that tradition but it has never been the mainstream. International war or conflict has been recognised as a material evil—a breakdown of the efforts of poor, struggling humanity to solve disputes by reason and by compromise rather than by force.
But instead of condemning the use of force as intrinsically evil, Christianity has attempted something rather different: to subject it to moral rules; to limit it; and to control the barbarous feelings and impulses that unavoidably it releases. If we give way to those, the values that we seek to defend will inevitably be destroyed.
I do not want to enter into a semantic debate with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, as to whether or not we are in a state of war. However, I believe that the concept of the just war—the intellectual concept used
214
by theologians over the centuries as a tool for achieving this limitation—is important to us in the present situation. The purpose of that concept is to keep the worst barbarities at bay. That tradition goes back centuries—far beyond the 13th century of Thomas Aquinas. It goes back to Augustine in the 4th and 5th centuries and is all the more compelling because it came from a man who was so resolutely opposed to capital punishment and who lived in such violent times.
The essence of a just war is that its purpose is not vengeance. It is not a lust for power but is the punishment of evil and the advancement of good. No civilised person can believe that the acts perpetrated against the United States three weeks ago were anything other than evil. It is perfectly appropriate to react to them with a sense of righteous anger.
Of course, we know that violent acts are rooted in a rancid soil of wrong-doing and injustice, especially in the Middle East and in the shameful gulf that lies between the rich nations and the poor. But that of course does not vindicate them. We must understand the conditions that produce such acts, not to justify them but to help to ensure that they do not happen again. That is why a military response alone is so inadequate, although we do not rule it out altogether. All credit, then, to President Bush, who so far has got matters right. We must do the same here. The Prime Minister has been rightly praised in the debate today for having a charism for finding the right words to express worthily the response to a great historical challenge. But I would add an addendum to that: if your Lordships love Tony, they must love Clare as well.
Our task, then, is to punish those guilty of atrocities. The direct perpetrators of them are beyond the reach of human justice. But those who aided and abetted them are not, and countries or regimes which give them comfort or refuge are equally guilty. We can find echoes of that in the cadences of the common taw: all people are held responsible for the natural consequences of their acts. That is why, having read the evidence that has been published today, I have concluded that the Taliban deserve to be rooted out, but not, of course, to the accompaniment of indiscriminate bombing and the slaying of innocent citizens who are in no way responsible for the bloody acts which have been committed by their rulers. Fortunately, modern technology, like Janus, has two faces: one increases the destructive power but the other enables it to be pinpointed and controlled.
At home also we must be diligent. I have nothing but contempt and express nothing but condemnation for those who would take revenge on the innocent followers of Islam. But we should not tolerate here those who incite others anywhere in the world to commit terrorist acts. As The Times pointed out last Saturday in a very persuasive leading article, we have ample powers under the Terrorism Act of last: year to punish such people and those powers should be used.
I hope that all our great national institutions will rise, as Parliament has done, to the demands of the situation. I have one particular institution in mind—

215
the BBC. The BBC's duty is to be as objective as possible in its reporting. But impartiality does not mean putting the United States and its President on the same level as bin Laden and his terrorists. That would be outrageous.
Perhaps I may ask a question which no one else seems to dare to ask. Why are some, but not all, of our BBC commentators so intemperate and so bellicose? Have they never heard of security considerations, especially concerning our own forces? Do they have to resort to aggressiveness, bullying, rudeness, interruption and the demand for simple answers to complex questions? Sometimes the abrasiveness is even reflected in the sneer in the tone of voice. The tone of public discussion is almost as important as its content. The recollections that I have of some interviews that I have heard on "The World Tonight" make me shudder, and those on "Newsnight" make me shiver. We have been through a 11th is before. We went through it in the Falklands War and in the Gulf War. Let us not go through it a third time.
I conclude on a more irenic note. At its best, the BBC still gives the finest media service in the world. Its World Service is a national treasure of incalculable value. I hope that we can renew and strengthen that tradition in all parts of broadcasting in the testing weeks and months that lie ahead.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I had prepared a speech but most of what I was going to say has already been said—and said very well. However, I have one point to put to the Government, which I hope they will clear up.
There is no questioning the fact that the Government are doing well in this tremendous crisis. However, we have to look at the reasons for the previous lack of action. I have in my hand a copy of Hansard from 12th December 1991. In that debate Lord Cheshire was very concerned about terrorism. He said:
"For instance, they may be used by a suicide group on a civilian airliner.—[Official Report, 12/12/91; col. 869.]
That warning was also given by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, during the same debate 10 years ago. What happened to our intelligence services? This appalling mass murder was planned, one must say, brilliantly and it was carried out, from training, selection, motivation and co-ordination, with good weather. That operation took an immense amount of preparation. I ask the Government whether the fault was that Ministers did not listen to the Security Service or that the Security Service did not have the information to give to Ministers. I know that that involves going back and that we should look to the future but the matter is extremely important. I want the Government to consider my question and to answer in this debate so far as they can.
We can see from films of cheering crowds that the great success of this appalling operation must have had a very stimulating—I wonder whether that is the right
216
word—effect on young candidates for suicide missions. One reason why it is necessary for the Taliban and bin Laden to be defeated and brought to justice soon is that that will at least show the young fanatical people who fall for that sort of thing that they cannot get away with it. That is my main question for the Government.
Another matter that has disturbed me greatly is Israel's behaviour. We saw what triggered the present round. The fact is that the normal method of controlling crowds and rioters involves the use of gas and rubber bullets, not marksmen killing rioters, who are probably young people throwing stones. The toughness that is beginning to be shown by America and ourselves is absolutely necessary if we are to get the right sort of settlement in the Middle East, although that will not be easy. I hope that that policy of toughness with Israel—forcing them to face the facts—will be continued by the Government.
I do not have anything more useful to say. Having spoken for four minutes I shall sit down with the hope that my two practical points will be answered.
5.55 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, the restraint shown by President Bush has already been commended. He showed restraint in the face of tremendous pressure to act swiftly after 11th September. What has not been said is that it is very largely due to the influence of our own Government and the new coalition against terrorism. We badly need statesmanship of that quality.
On Tuesday, Tony Blair showed that he had the necessary skills to forge a new bond not only between Europe and the United States but also between the Atlantic alliance and the rest of the world. I was disappointed that he had little to say about the Middle East. In view of his visit, perhaps he is leaving that for later. However, his Weltanschauung and his commitment to humanitarian action in Afghanistan and elsewhere—if that can really be achieved alongside a military campaign—was genuine and impressive. If anti-terrorism implies a renewed campaign against poverty and the conditions in which terrorism thrives, the whole world should be behind it.
Earlier this summer, when a handful of us debated Pakistan in this Chamber, I discussed the issue of refugees from Afghanistan. I said that 170,000 people had fled the effects of war and drought, on top of the 1.2 million already in Pakistan, the 1.3 million in Iran and the tens of thousands scattered in at least 68 countries, including ours. Afghans are now the single largest group of refugees in the world.
Since the events of 11th September the UN is appealing for help for nearly 10 times the number of new arrivals—up to 1.5 million people, in addition to the 7.5 million people who are in need inside the country. Just as the scale of the New York attack stupefied us, so will the extent of the human disaster in Afghanistan as it unfolds.
The aid agencies say that there are only a few weeks left if enough supplies are to be in place in time to avoid a human catastrophe. That was emphasised in the

217
Statement and by my noble friend Lord Bhatia. We have heard that trucks have managed to reach Kabul, and that others are leaving for Herat. However, according to the World Food Programme, 1,000 tonnes will be needed every day to create a sufficient stockpile of 56,000 tonnes before mid-November.
Who can say whether the food will reach the people? There is a very real risk that thousands of families will die of starvation, especially around Herat and the northern regions that are controlled by the Northern Alliance, if renewed conflict and lack of security get in the way of distribution. That has happened in so many countries so many times previously. For that reason, although they will not say so, the aid agencies take a very dim view of any United States or UK-led strike on Afghanistan on the Iraq model. Any NATO attack on government buildings, public highways and infrastructure might help to drive the Taliban out but it would be unlikely to restore peace, stabilise the country or meet the people's needs without a massive occupying force. That force would need to be larger than even the Liberal Democrats can conceive of. The approach would involve a Marshall Plan that would absorb all the peace-keeping resources that are available to the UN. It is pie in the sky to think that we could get to that point.
Of course we must all hope for stability in the future but, as noble Lords have said, it must primarily be for the Afghan people to decide—if they are ever given the chance. The immediate concern among aid workers is the condition of the poorest families. According to Oxfam, Afghanistan is already the poorest country in Asia. Three in four Afghans have no safe water or access to the most basic healthcare. As many as 800,000 people have been displaced during the past year alone. Not all of them were from areas under Taliban control. Many NGOs are now moving staff to areas bordering Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.
In a few days, the British public will again be asked for money for Afghanistan. But do we care? Dare we admit that, despite our protestations about common humanity, 6,000 people in Afghanistan or Lithuania mean a lot less to us than the same number of lives, including our kith and kin, in Manhattan? Does that matter? Yes, it matters, because the appalling suicide attack is more about perception than reality. It is about how we in the West, and especially in the US and the UK, see others, and how they see us. We in the West occupy the economic and, we believe, the moral high ground. The first is incontestable; the second is now critically in question. From now on, we shall have to reassess our moral position, whether we are living in the mid-west, in Europe or somewhere closer to the centre of the planet.
We constantly cry justice and freedom, but we in our mainly Christian—though increasingly plural—Western society can have no monopoly of those virtues or aspirations. I use the word "we" because we more than any other state share the values and heritage of the United States. However, it may even be time for us to rethink the concept of belonging to the West. I should like to think of us primarily as Europeans. I applaud the Prime Minister's attempt to enlarge the
218
international coalition, but it must not be a convenient strategic coalition, such as we have seen before, but one that will enjoy the full support of the rest of the world, especially the Arab nations.
Globalisation has not solved the problem of perception. Advanced technology allows us to look into the backyard of an Afghan refugee for our entertainment, or even to give charity to help him and his family; but it also brings home to us the huge contrast in lifestyles and cultural values across the world, and can do little on its own to bridge the divide. Only our collective effort based on our individual experience as human beings will do that.
In international relations, we are having to get used to rapid sound-bite responses and the sudden refocusing of our lives by political leaders, fed to us by the media. What was: important yesterday does not seem as important tomorrow. We pass through cycles of instant concern for victims past, present and future. We find it harder today to make eternal judgments based on the old values, whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish or any other law or code of practice
Having worked with several aid agencies now working in Afghanistan, I have seen some of their current responses and I know what they are going through. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, has already rightly commended them. Humanitarian agencies do not easily pass judgment on the actions of terrorists and politicians, but they feel strongly impelled to represent the feelings of the people whom they serve. They cannot but take the side of those innocent people who have wandered from place to place in that forlorn country in search of ordinary lives. They resent the innuendoes of some western politicians that they should be indirectly blamed for terrorism because of the country that they live in.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, has already mentioned the complicated ethnic divisions in Afghanistan. If ordinary Afghan Pushtuns support the Taliban, as many of them do, they can reasonably argue that many of their leaders were trained with United States support and are now being shot in the back. They are bound to resist any attack, and there can be no excuse for NATO to target innocent civilians—however close they live to the terrorists.
The same aid agencies, while not in any way denying the need for justice for victims of terrorism, ask why such punishment should extend to the targeting of infrastructure and communications, which will make innocent people more miserable and future aid an impossible nightmare. As the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, knows better than any of us, they recall the painstaking clearance of mines all over Afghanistan during many years and the painful process of rehabilitation and recovery from civil war in a country which may now be invaded again and left in ruins.
We must make certain in this unprecedented state of virtual war that justice is done on all sides, and that—as many noble Lords have said—there is a proper proportion between one act of aggression and another. At the same time, we must derive the maximum advantage from the new coalition against terrorism, to

219
ensure that a lasting peace in the region and greater understanding in both West and East will eventually follow.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I see that my name is just under two-thirds of the way through a long list of speakers, so I shall be brief.
I should like to express appreciation for the extent to which the Government, and, indeed, the Government of the United States, have gone out of their way to try to ensure that this campaign against terrorism—like Michael Howard, I prefer to avoid the use of the word "war", and especially of "crusade"—is not turned into a war against Islam. I hope that we shall not relax our efforts, both at home and abroad, towards that aim.
My noble friend Lady Richardson referred to the need to redefine Islamic fundamentalism. I hope that I may be allowed to tell the House a brief anecdote. Some 16 years ago, when I was Ambassador in Saudi Arabia, I accompanied a senior British Minister to call on the then and present Saudi Foreign Minister, Prince Saud al Faisal. I was somewhat electrified to hear the British Minister ask Prince Saud, "Tell me, Minister, do you have much trouble with Islamic fundamentalists?". Prince Saud drew himself up to his full 6 feet and said, "Minister, I have to tell you that we, the Saudi Government, are Islamic fundamentalists". It is perhaps worth remembering that.
There has been discussion about an apparent—I think that it is only apparent—contradiction between what the Prime Minister said two days ago, namely that the Taliban should either hand over Osama bin Laden or hand over power, and what the Foreign Secretary has been quoted as saying, namely that it is not the Government's aim to unseat the Taliban. I do not believe there to be a real contradiction between those two statements.
Whatever the facts, I most earnestly caution against any attempt by ourselves or other outsiders to start forming alternative governments in Afghanistan. I fully share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Temple-Morris, in his remarkable maiden speech, that we should not impose a regime on Afghanistan. There has been talk of helping the Northern Alliance to take over the reins of government in Kabul, and even of encouraging the ex-King, Zahir Shah, to leave Rome and resume his position as the constitutional monarch of Afghanistan. If events turn out that way, well and good, though I foresee many problems on the way. But the history of the past two centuries should provide us all, and perhaps most especially the Russians and ourselves, with sufficient warning against becoming too closely involved in or taking responsibility for the dangers and uncertainties—political, geographical, religious, ethnic and tribal—that afflict that unhappy country.
On the question of Palestine, to which several noble Lords have referred today, I am glad to see evidence that the present United States Administration are
220
becoming more closely engaged in the Arab-Israel dispute since the events of 11th September. Until this week, their influence appears to have been mainly directed towards trying to arrange and maintain a cease-fire, with limited effect on both sides. However, during the past few days there have been welcome signs that President Bush himself is now anxious and ready to move the peace process forward.
This is not the moment to go more deeply into the issues behind the continuing Palestinian-Israeli disturbances, which are still, tragically, producing daily casualties on both sides, but the time has come—indeed, it is long overdue—when all sides, in particular the United States Administration, should take balanced steps to tackle the deeper issues set out in Senator Mitchell's report. In this process, I hope that Her Majesty's Government and our European colleagues will be ready to play a similarly active and balanced role.
On a personal note, I am delighted to learn that the Secretary General of the United Nations has given special responsibility for humanitarian assistance to Ambassador Lakhdar Brahimi. Not only has Ambassador Brahimi unrivalled understanding of the problems of Afghanistan, but he will also be known to several Members of your Lordships' House as a distinguished ambassador of Algeria in London in the 1970s. If, as the Minister said, we regard ourselves as the vanguard of those giving humanitarian aid to the region, I have no doubt that we will find Ambassador Brahimi a most helpful and co-operative colleague.
Finally, I fully endorse the plea of my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig of Radley that there should be no reduction in the resources made available to the Armed Forces in waging this campaign against international terrorism. Perhaps I can echo his remarks in respect of the Diplomatic Service. The point has already been made today that the campaign will need to be waged on all fronts—military, intelligence and diplomatic. The last is particularly relevant to what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, called a "cornerstone" to the need for informed analysis and debate, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred also. It is clearly vital that adequate resources should be made available to all three services to enable them to contribute effectively to what the Leader of the House admitted will be a long and difficult haul.
6.11 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I do not believe I have ever listened to a debate in which there has been a greater degree of unanimity of view, not only over the tragic events, but also over the manner in which it should be approached. We should like to bring to this tragic mess something of the order in which we like to believe that we ourselves live.
The International Peace Bureau, which works from Geneva in Switzerland and was at one time the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, states:
"Many believe this appalling tragedy should mark the opening of a new era. We believe that the US Administration and Congress must face the stark reality that nuclear weapons and missile

221
'defence' systems offer no security for anybody in this new context. We urge the immediate review of defence policies in order to move rapidly toward a human-security approach and a different set of spending priorities. Everyone needs time to reflect on these terrible events and to find new ways to resolve them. This must involve a new and more equitable partnership between the United States and the rest of the world. Humility and social justice will make a surer path to improved security than the 'quick fix' of military force".
I am sure that most, if not all of us, agree with that. The organisation continues,
"We must not allow the atmosphere to be filled with the air of revenge, retaliation, nationalism and war … This is a crisis that cries out for new thinking. If it was, indeed, an 'attack on human civilization', then the United Nations is the correct institution through which to organise the response".
Many of us will feel that that is an important view. The organisation concludes with a quotation from Martin Luther King, who apparently said,
"An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind".
I had intended to say something about my experiences in World War II—I was in the Royal Air Force and spent some time in the Far East—and its relevance to the present situation. However, as this has been a long debate, that point can be raised on another occasion. Instead I close with another indication of the unanimity of view which exists, which is probably the most promising aspect of the events which face us.
I hold a photocopy of an extract from the Daily Telegraph, in which it gives space to a letter which reads as follows:
"An American military response to the horrific crimes committed against their innocent citizens will almost inevitably mean more innocent civilian deaths elsewhere. There are two entirely practical anti-terrorist steps which could be taken now.
The first is for the American government to give up its opposition to the establishment of a World Criminal Court with international and general jurisdiction. The second is for the American government to fulfil its own legal obligations (International Court of Justice ruling 1996) and begin to negotiate the abolition of that supreme instrument of terror, the nuclear weapon. A draft abolition treaty already exists.
The United States could still lead the world towards a future in which security is based on law and justice rather than on further military threat".
That letter is signed by Bruce Kent, vice-president of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. We can be more cheerful. A situation in which the Daily Telegraph features such a letter is one which gives rise to minor rejoicing.
6.19 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I should have thought that the freedom of expression that allows the Daily Telegraph to publish a letter that disagrees so profoundly with its own line is precisely the kind of thing that we are trying to defend. I hope that the newspaper will not be criticised in any way for that.
At the outset of the debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, referred to the almost universal Muslim condemnation of what happened on 11th September. We have heard many echoes of that during the debate, not least from the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, and the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin. I was dismayed to read in The Times this morning that there are prominent
222
people who seem to doubt that. Those who argue that we have not heard enough from Muslim clerics are inaccurate, unfair and profoundly unwise. They are inaccurate because it simply is not true. Any body who had been following the events in the press over the past three weeks would know that. It is unfair because in many cases the clerics have faced pressure from their own opposition, as we have seen from the cheering crowds on certain television programmes, and they have stood their ground and stood up to be counted. It is profoundly unwise because at a time, as we have heard again in the debate, when the Muslim population in this country is facing serious risk of personal attacks, when mosques are being torched and when people are being assaulted in the streets, to lend any credence at all to the view that the majority of Muslims in this country are somehow prepared to tolerate what happened in New York is nothing short of outrageous. I hope that the word will go out from this House that that sort of thing is not to be tolerated.
I have only one point to make. A number of speakers have referred to the attitude of the Muslim community in this country to what I call, perhaps illogically, the undistributed middle. We have all rightly condemned the terrorists—those who committed the offence are now beyond our jurisdiction—and those who support, aid, abet and finance them. We have all recognised that the vast majority of the Muslim communities in the world, including British Muslims, condemn the terrorists equally strongly. However, there is an undistributed middle—those who somehow manage to stand between the two groups.
I recently had a conversation with a Muslim who has lived here for nearly 25 years. He holds a senior professional position and is a thoroughly respectable and trustworthy man. He asked me to spend a few minutes with him, as he wanted me to understand his point of view. It concerns the use of the word "fundamentalist". I was interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, and others on the subject.
My friend started by asking me why successive British Governments had allowed people whom he described as Islamic extremists to live in this country and continue to preach their messages of hate. I explained the state of the law. We believe in free speech, we are reluctant to prosecute people for what they say as opposed to what they do, however unpalatable it may be, and, of course, we are particularly careful not to discriminate against ethnic or religious minorities.
My friend said that that was all very well, but the people he was talking about do not care for any of these things. They believe that for those who do not support their wish for their kind of Islamic religion to sweep the world, anything goes. They do not hesitate to call for the deaths of their enemies, even other Muslims. They seek to indoctrinate the young with their extremism and their followers are prepared to go to any lengths to compel adherents to their cause.

223
I said that that was a bit unreasonable. After all, there are fundamentalists in every religion, including in the Christian religion in this country. My friend said, "Patrick, that is all very well, but fundamentalist Islam is a rather different kind of animal."
This may be a matter of semantics. Perhaps we have to think this through and take advice from people who understand the issue a great deal better than I do. My friend's point is that the undistributed middle is here. They are a tiny minority, but they are present in this country and are apparently free to go on preaching in their mosques and schools that it is right to kill their enemies. My friend went on to ask whether we realised that the presence of such people here is a source of acute embarrassment to the majority of the Muslim community.
I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, say precisely the same thing two or three hours ago. I have discussed the issue with him since then outside the Chamber. I asked why we cannot persuade the authorities to get on and deal with the issue. If somebody is committing the offence of incitement to murder, why are they not hauled before the courts? Perhaps they are going to be. I saw an article in The Times on Tuesday headed, "Scotland Yard investigates North London militant". His name has been mentioned several times—Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad. The other name mentioned in the article is Abu Hamza al-Masri. They have been consistently seen as supporters of terrorism. They made no secret of their joy at what happened in New York. I find that deeply offensive. I accept that the Government do not prosecute; the police do that. However, I would like to know from the Government whether the authorities now intend to crack down on such support for terrorism. We do not need to put up with it in this country. I very much hope that I shall be able to tell my friend that I raised his point in the House of Lords and got a rather encouraging answer.
6.27 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, those of your Lordships who know my range of interests may have been surprised to see my name on the speakers' list for a debate on foreign affairs. I would not normally presume to add my name to those of your Lordships who are much more knowledgeable than I am on such matters. I shall precede my main remarks by explaining how it has come about. It is because I was in Washington during the attack on America and I have some information that I would like to share.
On 9th September I flew to Washington with members of the All-Party British America Parliamentary Group. The purpose of our delegation was to study American government at all levels, from the federal right down to the very local. I was the only Member of your Lordships' House in the delegation, along with seven Members of another place.
We began our programme with a series of high quality briefings on Monday 10th. Our programme for 12th September was to begin with a briefing on the
224
Bush administration's defence policy in the Pentagon. That briefing, of course, never took place. At 9 a.m. on the morning of Tuesday 11th we walked into the Capitol building. As the two planes were hitting the World Trade Centre, we were obliviously enjoying a brief tour of that lovely symbol of American democracy before sitting down for our first briefing.
As the third plane hit the Pentagon, not far away, we stood in the heart of the Capitol building, in the old Senate Chamber—the cradle of modern American democracy. Suddenly, security staff ran in and yelled at us to leave the building and to run. Helped by our escorts from the state department, we left swiftly and hurried away from Capitol Hill, as instructed. As we did so, we saw the smoke rising from the Pentagon and picked up snippets of information from television crews as we moved as far away as possible from federal buildings. I pay tribute to the professionalism and humanity of Deborah Underhill and Paul Engelstadt, our state department escorts, for their care for our safety and wellbeing.
We took refuge in a bar ironically named "The Hawk and Dove". The full horror of the diabolical attack on the free world unfolded itself on the television screens to a hushed crowd. It soon became clear that a fourth hijacked plane had been aiming at the Capitol building where we had been and that we probably owed our lives to the brave passengers who attacked the hijackers and brought the plane down in Pennsylvania. I would like to express my heart-felt gratitude and those of my colleagues to those men and my sympathy to their grieving but proud families. The reason why I wish to speak in this debate is to make your Lordships aware of what I heard directly from American politicians and ordinary people in the immediate aftermath and the two weeks that followed, unfiltered by the media. I heard shock and anger. I heard outrage and puzzlement. "Who could hate us so much that they would do this and why?" were the questions on many lips. I heard hurt and grief, but I did not hear demands for revenge and retribution. I heard very few incautious words. Instead, I heard calls for reason and justice. I heard wisdom, moderation, tolerance and self-examination.
America was shaken to its very foundations, but the response of many to whom I spoke was to call for a measured and wise response; to look inside at America's own foreign policies and internal race relations. I heard calls for a end to American isolationism and for more aid to those who live their lives in poverty. I heard fears that those of the Muslim faith within American society might be victimised because of these terrible acts and loud calls for the whole of society to outlaw any such thing. That is why I was glad when my senior colleague suggested that I should stay and complete my programme rather than return to your Lordships' House for the emergency Sitting on 14th September.
From the inside position which it was my privilege to be given, it became clear to me that many wise people within Congress realised immediately the danger of a precipitate response. The internationalists among them quickly identified the need for the

225
democratic world to stand together, and that the forthcoming battle would not be won by strength but by brains and team work. I was glad that I would be in a position to relay what I was hearing unfiltered by any demands from the media for what has been referred to in this debate as a firework display.
Many people thanked God for the influence of that leading moderate, the Secretary of State, Colin Powell. General Powell is a soldier and as such he knows that there is very little either of certainty or of glory in war. Many I spoke to prayed that he would be listened to. One of those with whom I worked closely over those first few days, Congressman Jim McDermott, the representative from Seattle, used some very powerful imagery in his speech to Congress a few days later. Understanding the need for the President to be seen by his people to be strong, he asked,
"Which animal catches the most prey, the lion or the bull? The lion watches and waits. He is not asleep and he is not weak. He is strong but he watches and waits and when he pounces he does so accurately and effectively. That is what America and her allies should do".
Those are wise words.
The power and importance of our special relationship with the United States was demonstrated over the next two weeks by the warmth with which we were received. The American people were very moved by the powerful symbolism of Her Majesty the Queen ordering the playing of their national anthem at the Changing of the Guard. It occurred to me, as has been said by several noble Lords, that good things must come out of this evil. One of them must be that this country must realise what a unique role we can play in the world. If we can play an active and committed role at the heart of Europe, and if we can at the same time remain America's candid friend, we alone can form a powerful conduit between those two vast blocs of the developed world and help them to work together for peace, environmental protection and enlightened development. Only we can do that and I for one hope that we shall do it.
From what I heard in the United States I promise noble Lords that those who fear the pressure on President George Bush from those who want action and symbols of America's strength, can be assured that there is equal, if not greater pressure on him, from wise and moderate people at the heart of American politics for a proportionate response, a massive humanitarian initiative and greater efforts to help the people of Afghanistan who are also suffering under Osama bin Laden and his friends in the Taliban regime.
We have heard a great deal about solidarity, the solidarity between the coalition of states against international terrorism and the solidarity between those brave emergency workers in Washington and New York who worked so hard and who in some cases gave their lives to save others. We have heard a great deal about solidarity among people of faith—all faiths. Let there by no mistake. There are many commonalities between Christianity, Islam, Judaism and many other faiths. Osama bin Laden's version of his religious duty is a diabolical distortion of real Islam. I therefore very much welcome the
226
announcement about legislation to protect religious freedom and to outlaw acts of violence against people because of their religious faith.
Religious freedom is one of the basics of my own political philosophy. Indeed, it is fundamental to the philosophy of my party. I firmly believe in the right of all people to practise their religion freely and to educate their children in its principles. I have within my own family Christians of several denominations as well as Muslims and Jews. I love and respect all of them. All of us have sent our children to non-sectarian schools. In Northern Ireland the workers for peace are sending their children to integrated schools, the better to understand each other and to promote peace in that troubled community in the long term. In view of the events of the past few weeks, as well as the lessons learnt at such terrible cost in Northern Ireland over 30 years, I would ask the Government seriously to reconsider whether it is right to encourage more faith schools in their forthcoming Education Bill. I personally do not believe that it is.
We face a number of battles at the moment: the battle for accurate information, the battle to devise and carry out an appropriate military response. But one of the most important battles we face, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester and others have said today, is the battle for hearts and minds and for understanding between peoples of different cultures and religions. In such a situation surely our children must grow up together, learn together and play together.
This has been a wonderful debate full of wisdom and insight. I apologise to later speakers and in particular the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, that I may be forced to miss their contributions because of a pressing engagement. I miscalculated the length of this debate and in the unusual circumstances I hope that I shall be forgiven. I shall read their comments in Hansard with interest.
Finally, perhaps I may urge any noble Lords who have their own special relationships with friends and relatives in the United States, to give them support through correspondence or in any other way that noble Lords can. Most of the citizens of the United States of America are thoughtful, tolerant and democratic people who share our values. The Prime Minister has been a trusted and candid friend to them so far on our behalf. I pray that he will continue to do so.
6.39 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, perhaps I should preface my contribution by saying that I have had experience in the past three years of dealing with young asylum seekers, some of whom are refugees from Afghanistan. I recently visited Angola with UNICEF. The theme of my remarks will be engagement with the developing world. Towards the conclusion of his speech on Tuesday, the Prime Minister said:
"This is a moment to seize. The kaleidoscope has been shaken. The pieces are in flux. Soon they will settle again. Before they do, let us reorder the world around us".

227
Are those words grandiose and unrealistic, or is this an opportunity that should be seized to improve the conditions of those in the third world and to make the whole world a safer place for us all?
In the previous debate on this matter, the noble Lords, Lord Naseby, Lord Elton and Lord Grenfell, emphasised the need to address the imbalances between the developed and the developing world if we are to choke the supply of terrorists in the future. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, made that point earlier. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, made an interesting contribution, which challenged that proposition. I have yet to consider his thoughtful words, but I shall give my first response now.
He seemed to be saying that terrorism and fanaticism are bred in the bone, and that in Northern Ireland, for instance, one cannot shake the faith and ideology of fanatics on both sides. He said that prosperity had little impact. The noble Lord seemed to be saying that we need a very long-term plan to address the problem. I agree with that and wonder whether the problems in Northern Ireland stem from the long-term oppression of Catholics and the feelings of Protestant insecurity over many generations. If that is the case, perhaps that lends weight to the arguments of other noble Lords that oppression in the developing world, that gross iniquity. may not be the way in which to address the immediate terrorist problem, but it may be how to address fanaticism in generations to come, to avoid breeding it in the future.
I shall give a specific example of how one might attempt to make a difference in the developing world. In Angola three out of 10 children die before the age of five. More than 50 per cent of children are stunted in their growth. They are less than 70 per cent of normal size. These figures come from UNICEF. The consequence is that there are children who are constantly crying and begging for attention. They are angry and unhappy because they are underfed. Other children are listless and bloated. They have reached the point of starvation when the cells cease to function properly. Such children have to be fed 12 times a day with a special milk formulation because the body can no longer cope with normal feeding. These children's arms are the thickness of doweling sticks.
At a recent conference at Chatham House in London, sponsored by the British Angolan Forum, a couple of Ministers from Angola and the governor of the national bank were present for the two days to discuss western policy on Angola. A young man from Mozambique, who works for an NGO, spoke to me towards the end of the conference. He said, "It is such a pity that here are two Ministers and a governor of the national bank from Angola, spending two days in London, but there is no Minister from the UK or Europe".
It must seem that we are not listening. The organiser of the conference said that he had written to members of the governments in Europe and the UK asking for their attendance, but without success. We need to engage in these issues.
228
Ambassador Paul Hare was present at the meeting. He described the engagement of the United States in recent years. Previous Administrations set up a bilateral committee, involving US officials, national Government of Angola officials and business people from America. One fruitful outcome was a grant supporting the prevention of the spread of HIV in Angola. President Bush was due to meet President dos Santos of Angola in Washington last month, but the meeting was cancelled for obvious reasons. President Bush is a Republican, who previously sponsored UNITA, the opposition party. The roots of the party of President dos Santos are Marxist, so there has been a journey—a useful one.
I return to the Prime Minister's words. Are they realistic? What can be done? I was in Paris on Tuesday evening and stood in front of the great Notre Dame cathedral. I was very moved by the sight of it in the spotlights against the dark blue night sky. I thought what an achievement it was for Bishop de Sully and the people of France in the 12th century. They had come together to create this immense and beautiful edifice that still inspires today. I remember JFK deciding that man should go to the moon. One of the most exciting times of my youth was the sight on television of the Apollo mission taking off and a man stepping on to the moon.
This Prime Minister has brought a party that was deemed unelectable by some through to a second term. Perhaps there can be hope if one plans for long-term engagement and adopts the principle of diplomacy that Ambassador Hare outlined, which must be on a personal level. We need to develop trust between individuals. Perhaps there is hope that we can engage more effectively with the developing world on many levels, through business, diplomacy and the NGOs, to remedy the problems that I described earlier. It is also in our interests not to create a generation of terrorists for the future.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, just about all that can be said about the terrible events of 11th September in New York and Washington has been said. Much of it has been well said, both in the debate in this House three days later and again today. Mere words will not, however, bring the perpetrators of those crimes to book. Nor will they protect us, or our friends and allies, or indeed the whole international community, against a repetition of them. As the scale and outreach of the terrorist networks that underpinned the onslaught become more discernible, we can see the enormity of the task that faces us. It is surely time to focus on some key elements of the campaign that lies ahead.
I want to begin with a plea—and I understand that in doing so I shall put myself in a position different from many who have spoken—that we stop spending quite so much time debating whether or not what we are engaged in is or is not properly speaking a war. Much effort can be put into parsing that word but common sense tells us that a carefully planned series of attacks which kills in an hour as many people or more

229
as would die in a moderate-sized modern battle is indeed an act of war and that any response has to treat it as such. Moreover, if we are to ask our fellow citizens to make sacrifices in bearing costs, in diminution of their liberties and perhaps in casualties to our Armed Forces, all of a nature which are normally justifiable only to wage war, we would do better to call a spade a spade.
However, this is not a war like any other in which this country has ever been involved; and some of the differences need to be understood if our response is to be as effective and as sustained as it will need to be if it is to succeed. A normal adage is that when war breaks out the diplomats and those who manage the economy play second fiddle until it is all over. Nothing could be further removed from the present situation. If this campaign against terrorism is to succeed, its political and financial dimensions will have to be pursued with as much vigour as its military ones. All three dimensions will need to move ahead in parallel and to be prosecuted in such a way that each supports the other. Indeed, it would not be surprising if in the long run the military dimension were less prominent than the other two.
A second difference is that in this war, unlike any other including the Cold War, there really is no such thing as a neutral or non-aligned state. To say that is not just a piece of rhetorical bravado; it is a statement of the obvious. So long as the terrorists can find safe havens, can transmit funds and can acquire weapons and documents they will not be defeated.
A third difference is that victory in this war will not be marked by some military triumph but rather by things that do not happen; by terrorist attacks which do not take place; and by the dislocation of these networks as much as by the bringing to justice of those who work in them.
In the past three weeks a massive coalition has been put together to combat terrorism. It is no mean achievement to have brought within its ambit countries as diverse as Russia and China, India and Pakistan. The solidarity of the five permanent members of the Security Council has been reestablished for the first time since it ceased to exist shortly after the end of the Gulf War. Two resolutions of the Security Council have been adopted unanimously which, taken together with the United States' undoubted right to act in self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter, now provide a mandatory framework of international law for the campaign against terrorism. Maintaining this coalition will not be easy. Coalitions are, by definition, fragile and fractious. But it is a crucial objective not because it is an end in itself—it is not—but because without it the political and financial dimensions of the campaign will be so much less effective.
The United Nations' framework may not mean much to some commentators in Washington but it means an awful lot to most of the countries whose effective co-operation is essential to success. Now that this framework is in place it needs to be developed further, if possible through the negotiation,
230
ratification and implementation of universal conventions striking at the roots of terrorism, and also by giving the United Nations the resources it requires to monitor and implement the obligations it has imposed on its members.
To move from the general to the very particular, I want to say something about Afghanistan. I should declare an interest as, unlike most Members of this House, I lived there for two years. But that was 40 years ago. Afghanistan finds itself in the eye of the gathering storm through no desire of the majority of its population who are in fact voting with their feet as they flee to the nearest frontier. Few countries' modern history has been more tragic and agonising; and that more due to the action of foreigners than to the failings of Afghans themselves. To read the commentaries of armchair generals and academic gurus, each lovingly describing the rate of the various misguided and mismanaged attempts, first by the British then by the Soviet Union, to dominate that country, the idea of taking any military action at all against Osama bin Laden and his supporters, the Taliban, is made to appear foolhardy in the extreme. But to take that view is not only a counsel of despair, faced as we are by so much evidence that the terrorist onslaught was indeed directed from there; it is also to allow historical analogies, which are almost never exact, to dominate our judgment.
Two factors doomed those earlier fiascos. The first was to attempt to prop up as rulers of Afghanistan unpopular factions whose dependence on external military support was their undoing in the eyes of most Afghans. The second was to attempt to hold down the country by military force which both the geography and the temperament of the Afghans made untenable. There is no reason to believe that anyone is likely to fall into either of those traps again.
But does that mean that we should simply in the longer term be indifferent as to who rules Afghanistan? That, roughly speaking, is the policy which has guided the international community since the Soviet Union withdrew from the country in 1989; and the least one can say is that it does not seem to have been a huge success. I suggest that there could be a way between the extremes of meddling and of indifference which could include four elements. First—and many noble Lords have addressed this point—there is need for a massive relief effort by the international community to help those Afghans suffering from the effects of drought and civil war both as refugees and, even more important, within the country.
Secondly, there should be a renewed attempt to encourage the Afghans themselves to put together a broad-based and representative government. By definition, that could be neither the Taliban, whose support comes almost exclusively from the Pashtuns and who lack any real consent from the Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara communities, nor the Northern Alliance, in its present form, which has the opposite defect. The United Nations could well have a role to play in brokering the formation of a government representative of all the main ethnic groups.

231
Here I slightly take issue and distance myself from the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. I do not believe that something like a UN protectorate is at all wise. Afghanistan has the pride of being able to say that it was one of the only two countries in the world which were never colonised in the 19th century or dominated by an external power and I do not believe that it is about to start submitting to that now. Therefore, I believe that it would be better to think of the United Nations in the form of a broker. The initiative, effort and responsibility must be taken by Afghans themselves.
Thirdly, we should set out formally and publicly what the international community is prepared to do by way of aid and backing for any representative Afghan government which hands over those who have committed or are planning terrorist offences and which verifiably dismantles the whole structure of training camps supporting them. Our hesitation and reluctance to set out the positive side of the agenda in quite different cases in Iraq and Yugoslavia in my view severely weakened the impact of our other policies.
Fourthly, and perhaps most importantly, once the other elements are achieved, we should aim to put in place a set of binding international legal obligations accepted by all of Afghanistan's neighbours against any further meddling in its affairs. That was eventually what was done far too late in the case of Cambodia. It could be that after so many bitter experiences a consensus might now be reached that meddling in Afghanistan has never paid, and never will pay, for any of its neighbours.
In conclusion, I should like to say a brief word about the role of the European Union so far in this crisis. A great deal of credit is due to the speed and unanimity of its action, whether it be in standing by the United States in its hour of trial, in helping to marshal the worldwide coalition against terrorism, in taking the first steps towards strengthening its own defences or in clamping down on the financing operation of the terrorist networks.
Europe's common foreign and security policy was always going to have to be beaten out on the anvil of events, not just enshrined in some communiqué or other. So far it has come through with flying colours. Yet again we have seen that when it comes to facing up to new threats and challenges it is action by the Union as a whole and not just action by one or other of its member states that provides the most viable and effective response.
7.1 p.m.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, this has been a particularly impressive—of course—and sobering debate. However, I should like to add my appreciation of the way that the UK Government have approached the terrorist threat to world stability. Perhaps I may also say how well the Americans have responded, which has been so cautious and measured despite the fears that some may have had. We and they need strong alliances wherever we can find them.
232
The questions I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Bach to answer when he winds up the debate are about our relations with Iran and about the discussions, so far as they can be revealed, between the right honourable Foreign Secretary Mr Straw and the leadership in Iran.
Before I come to my specific questions, I want to spend a moment or two examining how such atrocious acts could have become possible and on the reasons why they may be the tip of rather large icebergs. I am afraid that I do not believe that these acts are simply the product of poverty and oppression in the Middle East, although, as we know, they certainly exist and may play a part. Of course we must do everything in our power to correct them. However, I doubt if they are the root cause of terrorism. Nor would I accept that it is the Israel/Palestinian conflict that is responsible, as some seem to hint. Although it may contribute to the matter, it is much more likely to be symbolic of the wider conflict with western democracies than its cause, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, explained so eloquently.
There is much more of its root cause in the cynical manipulation of large vulnerable populations, somewhat ignorant of the outside world, by malign leaders who ceaselessly pour out their anti-western propaganda. Furthermore, to the deep regret and disgust of clear-thinking Muslims they often do so in the name of Islam. which they debase with their brand of fundamentalism. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, spoke movingly on the subject.
There are clearly recognisable extremist terrorist organisations, of which bin Laden's is but one. Hezbollah, the Islamic Jihad and Hamas—they are all on our list—are right up there with them with many others in a complex interrelated active network. They are all growing as they gain ready recruits from a propaganda-saturated population which forms the submerged base of this iceberg.
Much of it is driven up in places like Afghanistan, and, I am afraid, in Iran, in a very systematic way. That has not just started; it is a phenomenon which has been active for 20 years or more, and certainly, for example, during the whole of the time that the Middle Eastern peace negotiations were being pursued at Camp David and in Oslo.
Messages of hatred of the West and of Israel are constantly fed through school lessons and through the state-controlled media. Preachers extol the virtues of suicide to children as a way to Paradise. Perhaps I may quote some examples to your Lordships. On 30th August the official Palestinian authority daily newspaper Al Hayat Al Jadida said that we must,
"harm American interests…with all possible means in all places at all levels, because the United States does not understand the language of logic",
and so on. On 11th September the same newspaper said:
"These suicide bombers are the salt of the earth, the engines of history…they are the most honourable among us".

233
As an example of Palestinian television one could listen to the announcer who stated:
"Have no mercy on the Jews no matter where they are in any country. Wherever you meet them, kill them, wherever you are kill those Jews and those Americans".
These are all official organs of the state where there is no free press.
I have quoted from official Palestinian sources, but this type of background is a constant in a number of Middle Eastern countries. Is it any wonder then that we saw the spontaneous outbursts of joy and celebrations in the streets of Iran and the West Bank on 11th September? Of course the unfortunate journalists who recorded them were quickly bundled out of the country, but the celebrations were clearly a reflection of what the population had been taught was right from an early age.
It is depressing in the extreme to realise that whole generations have been borne into hatred, which will take decades of enormous effort to remedy. These hatreds may also help to explain why, for example, the offer by Prime Minister Barak of Israel to Mr Arafat at Camp David of the West Bank and of East Jerusalem to form the basis of his Palestinian state, with all the humanitarian and economic advantages that could then have started flowing for the unfortunate Palestinian people so long deprived of these basic needs, was turned down. That offer closely resembled what both Mr Bush and our own Prime Minister have hinted at recently—make no mistake, this was on the table—but it was turned down by Mr Arafat. What a tragically missed opportunity that was for the Palestinian people as well as for Israel and the rest of the world. The Palestinians at least deserve better.
But peace with Israel does not appear to be on the agenda for many other Middle East countries, including Iran, that wish completely to eliminate Israel from the map. Not just Afghanistan but a number of other countries, including Iran, promote, fund, train and arm terrorist groups on the West Bank and in Syrian-occupied Lebanon with the express purpose of destroying Israel. Little wonder that Israel feels, and is, a country under siege.
My questions are set against the background of state-sponsored propaganda against western democracy, of which Israel is only the local example. In fact, Israel is the only example of a democracy in the Middle East—its Parliament, the Knesset, includes Israeli Arabs. That propaganda, coupled with the cynical distortion of religious fundamentalism, leads to extreme terrorist activities.
Can my noble friend the Minister tell the House whether the Foreign Secretary raised with the Iranians the question of their promoting and arming terrorist organisations across the Middle East, including training camps in Iran? In particular, did the Foreign Secretary seek Iran's support in exerting pressure on Mr. Arafat to negotiate peace with Israel rather than its total destruction?
My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, in his remarkable and uncontroversial maiden speech, said that Israel must be taken by the scruff of the neck.
234
Israel feels as though it has been taken by the scruff of the neck, as it is subjected to constant attack. I am of course fully supportive of the Government's efforts to help the parties in the Middle East to reach a peaceful resolution with justice for all. Israel wants nothing more seriously.
7.10 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I had hoped to contribute to the previous debate but felt that much of what was said on that occasion was much more eloquent and based on far greater knowledge than any speech of mine would have been. It was also possibly that was not the right moment to discuss the humanitarian side of the crisis. Now we have reached a time when that aspect, which is of utmost importance, can be debated.
Preparing for today's debate, I had a depressing experience. I took out my old files on Afghanistan, only to realise that I had talked about its problems since I arrived in your Lordships' House in 1994. Worse still, I had done so on not one occasion but many times. The political, security and military aspects have been discussed at length by several noble Lords, so I shall highlight three humanitarian points—some of them mentioned by the noble Earls, Lord Sandwich and Lord Listowel, and by the noble Lord, Lord Judd.
First, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, who has always been most helpful in every way. My questions concern the extended poverty caused by terrorist exploitation of anti-globalisation and the difficulties arising from different cultures.
As was said by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London in his eloquent speech, as far as we know the terrorists involved in the recent atrocious acts were well educated, not poor, and led normal lives. However, they were able to manipulate and indoctrinate thousands of people who were desperately poor and had little to live for. In this country, there is a new generation who mind a great deal about poverty and similar plights and genuinely want to help. Many charities, such as the International Red Cross, do fine work, but that aid is a drop in the ocean in relation to the immense problems. The future refugee problem will be gigantic—let alone the latest reports of the largest outbreak in history of Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever, similar to Ebola fever, among Afghan refugees crossing into Pakistan.
How can we help? Will the Government make certain that refugee camps meet international standards and that no one country will have to bear the disproportionate burden that would easily swamp and destabilise the area? Most importantly, in the longer term we should think about reconstructing the Afghan homeland so that refugees can return home safely.
The humanitarian side emanating from this disaster is more important than ever as it is difficult to fight either terrorists or dictatorships from a democratic country. In April this year, the Minister told us that we were providing assistance that benefits Afghan farmers who have lost their livelihoods for various

235
reasons. Can the Minister tell the House whether that assistance, as well as the newly promised aid package, is continuing? How do we make certain that it is getting into the right hands? Aid agencies have made it clear that the impending catastrophe is of mass starvation because the crisis follows three years of drought and crop failure.
Of the 21 million Afghans still remaining, many will die this winter unless food aid programmes can be resumed before the winter closes in across the routes in mid-November. If any bombing should take place, it is vital that as much food aid as possible should be delivered beforehand.
What progress have the Government made in reopening the BBC office in Kabul? There are indications that over 60 per cent of Afghans listen regularly to the BBC. Since 1982 the BBC World Service has been broadcasting in Pashtu to millions of listeners. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, in his support for the BBC World Service.
The figures that have come from the World Bank are frightening: 40,000 more children could die from the knock-on effect in those poor countries, even if the World Bank increases its lending by up to £542 million, because of the economic damage wrought by the terrorist attacks.
The anti-globalisation or the anti-capitalist voice has grown dramatically recently. Many of the anti-globalisation demonstrators who now plague international meetings should think twice before wrecking more cities. I am sure that many are well-meaning social activists who believe in the sanctity of human life, but other anti-globalisation activists, like the terrorists, have made clear it that they see the capitalist icons such as the New York Trade Centre and the World Trade Organisation in Geneva as symbols of oppressive American domination of the world economy.
The terrorists have achieved some of the anti-globalisation protesters' dearest objectives. Following the attacks on New York and Washington, the annual meetings of the IMF and World Bank in Washington have been cancelled. The protestors who want to prevent the holding of those meetings seek to advance their political agenda through intimidation, which is the classic goal of the terrorist. Those meetings are of great importance for the developing world, especially with the slowing world economy and the risk of protectionism. The world trade round this year is said to be essential to restore economic growth and confidence.
In Claire Stirling's remarkable book written as long ago as 1981 when terrorism was rife, she said that the ultimate target of the international terrorist network was the western democracies and their supporters; the beneficiaries, the enemies of the West.
Finally, I turn to a sensitive point. When I asked the Minister in November 1997 how the Government would make certain that blatant abuses of human rights in Afghanistan, especially towards women, would be fully addressed, the answer was, "With great
236
difficulty". The situation of women has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, in his forceful speech. Perhaps I should declare an interest at this stage as a patron of the Mother/Child Clinic in the Panjshir Valley.
Both Boris Johnson and Polly Toynbee have recently written that there are people who feel that their culture is under siege. They fear that American morals and values will take them over. Yet this is a world where women are lashed for adultery; all girls are denied an education; no women, even if they are doctors or teachers, are allowed to work; and women are denied elementary healthcare. We should not forget that 65 per cent of the Afghan are women and are virtually under house arrest.
It is difficult to reconcile two seemingly contradictory sides of this debate. Should religious and cultural self-determination take precedence over the promotion of women's education? Surely, female education is one of the main answers to the global population problem.
I should like to end with a thought from Charles de Gaulle:
"It is not tolerable, it is not possible, that from so much death, so much sacrifice and ruin. so much heroism, a greater and better humanity shall not emerge".
7.20 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, the content of this second debate has differed markedly from the first. None the less, it is of great value to us all. On the previous occasion we were preoccupied by the extent of the horror and the timing and possible nature of retribution. In this debate we have changed course, turning instead to the state of opinion in this country, and particularly to the views of the minority communities here. We have heard some outstanding and valuable contributions on this particular topic.
But we have drawn, I suggest, no common conclusions about the essential matter of retribution. I may be wrong, but my impression is that while we admire the untiring efforts of the Prime Minister and his colleagues to win support for their coalition and for a common position with our friends around the world, particularly in the Middle East, it remains doubtful whether we can win their active support for military operations without disclosing the intelligence which we feel it our bounden duty to protect. If I am correct in drawing this conclusion, that leaves the British and American Governments in a very disagreeable dilemma.
Thus in this debate we have moved from the general nature of our reaction to the terrorist attack, which we debated before, and the broad principles involved in this, to the adjustment of our existing laws to the new international environment. I want to emphasise the importance of this task and its particular difficulty. The importance is clear enough: it is our capacity to turn into effective measures the fine words and commitments of principle which have been courageously made. The overriding problem for us British is that we are dealing with an area of maximum

237
complexity—that is, the conjunction between the nature of our civil society and the inherited traditions of justice public life in which we take pride on the one hand, and, on the other, our need to embody in this society the commitments made during this crisis, together with some important innovations in European law and some changes needed to remedy defects in existing bilateral and multilateral understandings which have been revealed.
As an example, let us take the tricky business of the extradition question. Recently, in March of this year, the Home Office published a paper explaining why some changes in our procedures were desirable. I am inclined to follow that approach. But I mention this matter in particular because I think it is one of the cases where the adjustment of our domestic laws can be examined with particular attention in this House, where we have much relevant knowledge and the capacity for careful and impartial analysis which could prove very useful. Indeed—this is a suggestion the Government may care to bear in mind—this is a Bill which could appropriately be introduced into this House for discussion.
The poet John Donne taught us nearly four centuries ago that no man is an island. Nor is a continent, even one which is the home of communities as successful and determined as is North America. The underlying necessity in this particular crisis is the need to keep the global context of our national measures constantly before us. I believe that this has been the Prime Minister's approach, as he exemplified in his remarkable speech in Brighton on Tuesday. I trust that the rest of us can, like him, continue to think of the global effect of what we actually do, and also of the global consequences if we do nothing in particular.
Of the speeches made in this interesting debate, I was struck by the suggestion made earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, about the need for a United Nations protectorate in Afghanistan. To this was added the latest suggestion of my noble friend Lord Hannay about what the Security Council might actually do. I suggest to your Lordships that his particular suggestion, based on his experience in the United Nations and in Afghanistan, is a very practical step forward for us to consider.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, for nearly nine hours we have had an extremely wide-ranging debate. During that time there have been many passionate and intellectually inspiring contributions, with many of which I have agreed. But by comparison I feel that what I have to say is an analysis of where we are and what we should be doing in this country to deal with the question of terrorism.
When we debated the issue of terrorism on 14th September in the immediate aftermath of the atrocities committed in America by those who can only be described as suicidal fanatics, there was a mixture of disbelief, shock, horror and anger felt throughout the civilised world. Those spontaneous emotions were quite naturally reflected in our debate that day. There
238
was undoubtedly concern that a military response would take place almost immediately simply seeking revenge. Such a response could so easily miss the target and as a result kill many more thousands of innocent people. Such a hasty response could easily have provided a propaganda advantage for the terrorists with the Arab world with perhaps many Muslim countries being persuaded that we were indeed involved in a holy war. However, as we know, there has been no knee-jerk reaction. There was no immediate military offensive. Indeed, quite the opposite has been the case. Of course, there has been a military build-up but that has been coupled with the building of a world-wide coalition involving political, economic and diplomatic efforts to run the terrorists to ground and to establish international support for the war on terrorism, a war that is already attacking the bank accounts used by the terrorists and a war that will shortly attack the very source of much of the wealth in these accounts; that is, drugs from Afghanistan.
Leaders throughout the world in the coalition must not only be congratulated but supported for the way in which they have responded to the evil of terrorism that threatens us all and about which we have become much more conscious since 11th September 2001. Those congratulations and support are particularly directed at the president of America and our own Prime Minister, both of whom have demonstrated not only determination and commitment to defeat terrorism and bring the terrorists to justice but have shown patience and restraint to ensure that whatever military action is necessary the loss of innocent lives is minimised—something the terrorists never concern themselves with. Indeed, the Taliban has been given every opportunity to meet the demands of the international community and give up bin Laden. The approach and actions of the governments of America and Britain have ensured that it is universally recognised that this is not a war against peace loving Islam but a war on terrorism. That is now appreciated not only by what we know as the free, democratic and civilised world, but also by countries which have different cultures to our own.
The coalition of nations against terrorism is new and unique, the like of which the world has never before seen. It is a pity that it has taken such an outrage to bring about this international co-operation—international co-operation between security and intelligence services which is without precedent. That co-operation must never be allowed to elapse. Never again can we take anything for granted. I know that it has now become something of a cliché but the world has now changed and changed for ever. If people are to feel safe and secure, measures we have not experienced in the past will now become normal practice.
A start is already being made with proposals for sky marshals on planes, demands by American airline pilots for guns and demands for secure cockpits, as well as much greater security checks at airports. These safeguards will never be relaxed again. New laws will

239
be passed all over the world. We in Britain cannot escape our responsibilities to ensure that this nation's people are safe and secure.
In this country we have always prided ourselves on extending civil liberties and human rights not only to our own citizens but also to those who have chosen to come and live here. That has been welcomed, but now we know more than ever before that there are those who exploit and abuse our liberal approach and generous conditions to such an extent that it now threatens our very security. Of course we must never abandon our civilised approach to civil liberties and human rights, for to do so would be to surrender to terror. However, I believe that now we have to re-establish a new balance between the provision of these values and the need for security and safety.
In that regard, there are four major and important areas which the Government have a prime duty thoroughly to examine and to bring before Parliament the appropriate proposals. For some of those to which I shall refer, I welcome the statements already made in that regard. First, I believe that the introduction of identity cards on a compulsory basis must be given serious consideration. In that regard, I am encouraged by the remarks of my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours in his maiden speech. Secondly, I believe that the laws governing asylum seekers should be tightened. Thirdly, I believe that our laws on extradition should be sharpened. Fourthly, I believe that the law, or the lack of law, which allows people publicly to preach support for terrorism should be drastically overhauled.
In respect of identification cards, I have heard it argued that it is a gross attack on civil liberties. I do not agree with that. I share the view that the innocent have nothing to fear from the introduction of identity cards. I have also heard it said that if ID cards are introduced, they will provide a field day for the forgers. To that I respond by saying that passports are forged, but we still produce passports. Counterfeiters forge currency, but we still produce banknotes. That argument does not wash with me. The answer is not to avoid producing ID cards; it is to make it more difficult for the forgers. I am not saying that ID cards alone will increase safety and security, but as one measure in a package of measures, I believe that it will help.
With regard to asylum seekers, I have seen it reported that there could be as many as 200,000 to 300,000 asylum seekers who have been denied entry to this country, but nevertheless have melted into our society and are surviving by way of the black economy. We do not know how many of those have become members of terrorist cells. Another newspaper report suggests that there are as many as 1,200 terrorists living in Britain today. This state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue. In my view, the law should be tightened accordingly.
Concerning the question of extradition, it is clear that although there are a number who have committed terrorist acts in other countries, our current laws provide them with a safe haven in Britain, no doubt
240
enabling some of them to continue to plot more terror, perhaps the next time against us. I believe that the law on extradition must be dramatically sharpened.
Finally, I turn to the law, or lack of law, that allows fanatics publicly to express support for terrorism, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, referred. I refer in particular to those who expressed joy at the suicidal terrorist outrage on 11th September. That cannot be right. Most people in this country find that to be a bewildering scenario. This circumstance is not only morally wrong, it is also highly dangerous because such actions attract a backlash. It is the innocent Muslims living in this country who then come under attack. It is my view that the law should make such acts of support for terrorism illegal, much as has been done regarding the incitement of racial hatred.
It is clear that if we want the people of this nation to live in an environment that is safe and secure as far as possible from terrorism, in particular on the scale witnessed last month in America—and I am convinced that that is what most people want—then it is possible that the price to be paid is some curtailment—I stress: some curtailment—of what we currently know to be our civil liberties and human rights. I believe that that is a price worth paying in our attempt to ensure that our grandchildren and great-grandchildren live in a world free of terrorist atrocities.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as one who has listened to 40 of the previous 47 speeches but sees considerably fewer than 47 people present to hear mine, I wondered for a moment whether I should detain your Lordships at all.
I do not want to pick up all the points that were made but I start with the position taken by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. In a most powerful speech he pointed out that, whatever we do, terrorism will not go away in the immediate future. We shall not stop it at a blow; we shall never stop it altogether. We must learn to live in a world in which regrettably it has already become established.
We can do some things to mitigate that in the short term and I believe that one of the most important was mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick: we should increase considerably our intelligence efforts and resources. That will cost money and should be taken into account in the Budget. We must be prepared to pay for it.
In the long term we must change the context in which terrorism flourishes, but not by the execution of vengeance. "Vengeance is mine", sayeth the Lord. "I will repay", we read in the Old Testament. I was fascinated to hear the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, quote a part of the Koran in which God is attributed with a very similar message. It seems that we need to know more about each other's faith if we are to live at peace with one another, and nothing could be more strengthening than that.
In parenthesis I suggest, not as an idea to be put into effect but as one to be considered very carefully, the success of integrated schools; for example, Lagan

241
College in Belfast. I wonder whether it would be possible—it is a pity that no single Lord Spiritual is present to intervene at this point—to consider an integrated Christian and Muslim school. It would not be integrated in the same way, but if it were to take effect under a joint theological management, it may produce understanding. I put forward that point merely as an idea to be considered, but I believe that it should be considered quite hard.
The context in which terrorism flourishes does not produce the terrorism. That is produced by fanaticism and, I believe, by a misunderstanding in the nature of God. That is the case even with those who are neither Muslim nor Christian. I do not believe that the UDA is a Christian organisation any more than is the IRA or any more than Osama bin Laden's group is a Muslim organisation. That has been made clear today.
However, the context in which the terrorists are able to carry out their work is one in which, as I said in our previous debate, a great proportion of the world in poverty views a much smaller proportion of the world in wealth. It is one in which those who enjoy approximately 70 per cent of the total benefit of modern developments are, as they see it, in charge of the process of producing it. They manipulate it and are forced to protect it. They are the policemen and the millionaires. I am not saying that that is how it is, but that is how it looks. That matter must be addressed.
For a moment I was greatly excited by a passage that I read from the Prime Minister's speech at Brighton in which he said:
"the test of a decent society is not the contentment of the wealthy and strong, but the commitment to the poor and weak".
I happened to read that in a newspaper. After I had done so I read the rest of his speech and found that he was referring not to world society but to British society. What we apply to ourselves we have to apply to others. A decent world society is judged not by the contentment of the wealthy and strong but by the commitment to the poor and weak.
There has always been a moral imperative in that direction. What changed on 11th September is the recognition that there is also a very strong element of self-interest in that message. If we do not remove the context in which there is such disparity in wealth and security, our own security is very much at risk. The moral imperative has been joined by a strategic imperative. I say again and in spades that that is going to cost.
No noble Lord has yet discussed the fact that making the world not merely just for others but safe for us will necessarily involve a considerable impact on our own economy. I refer to the impact not of terrorism but that of the aid and structural change needed to bring the other part of the world into the enjoyment of wealth. That is not going to be popular in a democracy that votes on taxes.
We are in an extraordinary situation in the face of terrorism and in defence of liberty. It is surely axiomatic that in the defeat of someone who tries to take away one's liberty, one has to give up some of one's liberty in order to defend it. The noble Lord,
242
Lord Davies of Coity, urged us to give up a tiny bit of our liberty by having identity cards. As one who can still remember the number on his original identity card I have no trouble with that. One has to give up more serious liberties when one signs the Official Secrets Act. The defence of liberty involves giving some of it away. The defence of wealth also means giving some of one's wealth away.
I do not want to be tedious in relation to a subject about which I spoke only a few days ago. I probably did so with more energy because I was speaking earlier in the day. However, I speak with exactly the same degree of conviction. We have a moral and a strategic duty and an imperative to address the inequality of wealth in the world. If we do not, we shall not for long have a world at all.
7.43 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, there must be some sort of memory in operation. I believe I am right in saying that on 14th September, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, was followed by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who was followed by me. We were in about the same place in a long batting list.
I start with a few words on identity cards. I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, who made a notable maiden speech. He recounted an anecdote of his time in Paris as a student when his identity card saved him from the savage French police. I was there at the same time or a little earlier—1958—and have a slightly different tale to tell.
I was going to bed in my 1932 Wolseley one night in Pigalle. Someone was plainly anxious about what I was doing—undressing and putting on my pyjamas, as one should. Ten minutes later, there was a rap—a very savage rap—on the car. I looked out of the window and saw eight fierce, heavily armed army men with sub-machine guns that were all pointing in my direction. I gingerly got out of the car. I did not have an identity card but I uttered the immortal words, "Je Suis anglais". That was sufficient for them to realise that I was a pathetic and eccentric Brit. They laughed hilariously, got on to the back of their fierce vehicle and drove off. I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, had been here to hear my counter-story.
The Gunpowder Plot, to which my noble friend Lord Russell referred, was followed immediately by a piece of legislation the preamble to which says:
"An Act for the better discovering and repressing of Popish recusants".
That was a foul piece of legislation, entitling any Justice of the Peace to haul up any suspected Catholic to take an oath about the Pope and the King. It was repealed two centuries later, to much relief, because it did no good to anyone—indeed, it exacerbated tension.
I have considerable faith in the present Home Secretary, David Blunkett. The approach that he has taken to this thorny issue is exactly right: one of

243
caution and determination to ensure that whatever is proposed is workable, essential and will have minimal impact on our current liberties.
Having said that—my noble friend Lord McNally referred to his sceptical approach—we must be careful of the over-mighty state. We need not think in exaggerated terms of Kafka and Nineteen Eighty-Four, but it is a truism to say that these days the state intrudes more and more, with greater and greater specificity, in our lives. Many people are uneasy about that. I have many friends who came here in those terrible pre-war years who will say, "The thing that I most value about this place is that I am on nobody's list; I feel free; I am free; I can change my name tomorrow; I have no identity card." Those are intangible but invaluable benefits of living in this land. The psychology of freedom must never be forgotten. Freedom is an issue of the heart. People talk about the climate of freedom, not its narrow specifics, and we so easily inadvertently undermine that.
The only truly effective way of having an identity card that is not easily circumvented by fraud would be by use of what is called a biometric identifier. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, was calm at the prospect of such a card. It would have not only one's picture but fingerprints or an iris scan, as well as details of one's DNA make-up. My objection to that—although I do not have a closed mind—is that we have so many examples of the incompetent state of national record-keeping. Let us take the national register of fingerprints and DNA samples for those who have been convicted or are suspected of crime. In the audit undertaken by the police last year, no fewer than 50,000 illegally held samples were found to be still on that register.
Fraud in relation to national registers is notorious. It is easy to get details of someone's convictions or their driving licence. It is as simple as pie to get details of anybody's bank account in any bank. We should steer clear of such a scheme unless its arrangements are foolproof, but without an overwhelming bureaucracy, and unless it will achieve its purpose—the biggest question of all.
I turn to the issue of terrorism and concentrate on the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation. Although there are many causes of terrorism, there is no doubt that the Israel-Palestine stand-off since the creation of the state of Israel has been the principal cause of bad blood and poison in the Middle East and surrounding regions. If we are—as others have said, and as I said on 14th September—in the business of winning hearts and minds as an essential precondition of making any serious dent in terrorism, we in the West must have a live sense of our failings, understand how others see us, especially those from different cultures, and adopt an even-handed approach in future actions in a way that, sadly but undoubtedly, we have failed to do visávis Israel and Palestine.
The noble Lord, Lord Temple-Morris, in another admirable maiden speech, talked of our treatment of Iraq and Iran. What he did not mention, though I will because it is an extremely live issue in Iran, is that
244
when, in 1980, Saddam Hussein made a grab for some of Iran's most fruitful oil territory, our response was to take the line that "my enemy's enemy is my friend." We armed Saddam Hussein to the teeth and supported him throughout the devastating eight-year war which then ensued. The Americans, ourselves and the French were his allies and suppliers. It is estimated that 1 million Iranian people died in that war, the same as we lost in World War I, and many more millions were injured. That sort of conduct—"realpolitik" as some call it—is of the most counterproductive variety which poisons relations for years to come.
Reference was made to the clash of religions. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and my noble friend Lady Williams pointed in the direction of not so much a clash of religions as sometimes a clash of religions and values. Although it is difficult for me to say this, I believe that when the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, said that the World Trade Centre was a symbol of modern civilisation, that was perhaps a good example of seeing those twin towers from our own vantage point and not as they are apt to be seen by other countries. Many Muslim states regard the World Trade Centre as a symbol of the infinite power, the unalloyed materialism and aggressive competitiveness of America and the West. And I am bound to say that modern multinationals are often ambivalent ambassadors of western values. We need to contemplate and understand how we are seen by others and to be a little humble in trying to understand that.
Finally, a word on even-handedness. What I say is critical of Israel and America, and indeed of ourselves. But I should immediately add that I agree entirely with the tone of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Janner. I count myself a friend of Israel. I offered to enlist in the Israeli Army in the Yom Kippur war. It is against that backdrop that I make these remarks.
When visiting, as I did in the spring, the camps in which the Palestinian refugees are housed, I learnt for the first time that the anniversary of 2nd November 1917, the day of the Declaration of Balfour, is regarded as a day of mourning throughout the 59 Palestinian camps. It is worth remembering that the Balfour declaration specifically says that in providing a national home for the Jewish people,
"it must be clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine".
That has been honoured in the breach. The Palestinians have never been asked in a plebiscite whether they wanted the creation of the state of Israel on their land. Though I am sure everyone in this House is resolutely committed—the deed having been done—to the preservation and the guaranteeing of the safety of the state of Israel, we must see it through the eyes of not only Palestinians, but also many other countries in that region of the world. To them we are hypocrites, salving our own consciences vis-à-vis the Jews, particularly after the holocaust, by giving away someone else's land. There are 1.2 million refugees in 59 disgusting, degrading, disgraceful camps as we sit here. They, and a further 2.5 million registered

245
Palestinian refugees, are all men and women and descendents who left what is now Israel in 1947–48, when 70 per cent of the inhabitants were ejected or left because they were frightened.
We need to understand how the situation seems to those people. If we fail to do that, we shall never come near to a resolution of the terrorist problem that we are talking about tonight. Those camps drive the people in them to an extremism that we have seen demonstrated in the grotesque events of 11th September. They are breeding grounds for new terrorists. Nothing will stop that unless we change the circumstances.
I end with a word of hope. We all know of the breakdown of Camp David, but I had not fully appreciated—and others of your Lordships may be in the same position—that the negotiations continued thereafter. In January this year at Taba in Egypt, the two delegations came to a broad agreement, though tragically it came too late for implementation, because that was shortly before the election in which Mr Barak was defeated by Mr Sharon. I shall read two excerpts from the documentation that came out of the Taba talks.
The first quotation comes from the response by the Israelis to a Palestinian refugee paper of 22nd January last. The Israelis said:
"The issue of the Palestinian refugees is central to Israeli-Palestinian relations. Its comprehensive and just resolution is essential to creating a lasting and morally scrupulous peace".
The response went on:
"it is incumbent to take responsibility to assist in resolving the Palestinian refugee problem of 1948…These refugees spent decades without dignity, citizenship and property".
The agreement that was reached but never implemented involved a method of dealing with that grievous problem that would have stood a reasonable chance of success. The final joint declaration said:
"The way forward lies in international legitimacy and the implementation of UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 leading to a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders, Israel and Palestine living side-by-side, with their respective capitals in Jerusalem.
There is great hope and I believe that if we can build on the point that was reached in January a great deal of our concerns will indirectly be resolved.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, the debate has moved down a large number of side roads, but at its heart is the question of the best way in which to defeat terrorism. In seeking to rid the world of terrorism, we are fighting a fire. The first rule of firefighting is to avoid adding fuel to the flames. It is my belief and that of the Green Party that any heavy-handed military action against Islamic fundamentalists would add fuel to the fire. I shall explain why.
The terrorists want us to attack. They have sought to manoeuvre us into it. Their attack on 11th September was meant to provoke us into heavy-handed reaction. They want us to attack as heavy-handedly as possible. However, making martyrs for the further inspiration of new adherents to the cause
246
would result in further terrorist attacks on the West. It would not be a military success; it would be a grand strategic failure. Our retaliation would serve their purpose of escalation, not our purpose of defeating terrorism in the short and the long term. If anyone doubts that, I ask them to remember the seed sown by the execution in Dublin Castle of the patriots who rose against British rule in 1916. That has proved to be one of the seeds of a great deal of the terrorism that has happened in Ireland and Northern Ireland ever since.
I do not speak lightly about this because, although I was as shocked and horrified as anyone by what happened on the morning of 11th September, I was the more so because my daughter and grandchildren were living within half a mile of the twin towers and for some time I did not know what might have happened to them. I am glad to say that they are all well and reasonably happy.
The second step in fighting this fire is to cut off the oxygen supply. President Bush has handled the situation admirably so far. He has already taken steps to cut off funding, as we have. The world is practically unanimous in condemning the atrocities. A major step has been taken to isolate the fire and the steps need to be consolidated. But it, is important that the United Nations is seen as the best forum for international agreements and it is to be hoped that the United States of America will abandon some of its traditional antipathy.
But we must go much further. Terrorism did not begin on 11th September 2001; nor are some Islamic fundamentalists its only proponents. Every state which kills or aids the killing of civilians is guilty of terrorism. President Bush has not declared war on terrorism only on some terrorism. For decades US governments have been ignoring, sponsoring or even perpetrating acts of terrorism when they have perceived some benefit to themselves from such a course of action. The United States and the United Kingdom were complicit in the murder of up to one million people by the Suharto dictatorship in Indonesia during the 1960s when Suharto invaded and occupied East Timor and killed one fifth of the original population. The British and United States governments maintained friendly terms and fell over themselves to supply arms. I put it to this House and to Her Majesty's Government that if we are serious about defeating terrorism there is no room for such an appalling double standard.
In one of the admirable maiden speeches we have heard tonight I heard one of the very best mixed metaphors ever. "A global alliance is not a one-way street". It is not, but nor is a war on terrorism a one-way street. Double standards which have been displayed in the past by the West, and by many other nations—in the training of Contra terrorists in Nicaragua, for example—must be abandoned in future. We must be clear about our mission. It is not merely to put an end to some terrorists, it is to end the scourge of terrorism. It is not something which is just perpetrated by hijackers and shadowy figures in black balaclavas. It is something which states themselves can and do indulge in.

247
We are clear that in seeking to defeat terrorism we are promoting the rule of law. On the international stage we must adhere to international law. Yet we have far from spotless records in that regard. The Geneva Convention forbids attacks on civilians in wartime, but that has been repeatedly ignored, not least in the last two wars of 1991 and 1999 in which we took part. An estimated 200,000 Iraqi civilians were killed during the slaughter known as the Gulf War and its immediate aftermath, as a result of targeting policies calculated to destroy the civilian economic infrastructure. In the bombing of Yugolsavia in 1999 NATO breached international law which forbids attacks on civilians and civilian objects. No wonder that about 1,500 Yugoslav civilians were killed in that campaign.
In that sense, our Government were guilty of regarding ordinary Iraqis and Yugoslays as the enemy. That is what the terrorist does. He regards the people who were working in the two towers as the enemy. The only moral course of action must be one that tries to avoid civilian casualties. Of course there will be some, but we must try to avoid that as far as possible.
If we are to inspire the whole world to collaborate energetically in the defeat of terrorism, it must be to defeat all terrorism. There must be no turning a blind eye to acts of terror simply because we want to do business with the perpetrators, as in the case of Indonesia. There must be no sponsorship of terrorism by western Governments, as there was in the case of Nicaragua. Our Governments must recognise international criminal law and never act outside it.
If we hold dear the sanctity of human life, we cannot, and must not, take any action that would escalate this crisis, leading to the death of more innocent people in any country. To return to Sun Tzu, he said that the acme of military skill was not to win 100 victories in 100 battles, but to win without fighting.
8.6 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, having spent the last year of my government service fully caught up in the Gulf war, I appreciate from my own experience at that time the complex and difficult task of assembling a wide-ranging coalition of governments world-wide. I also appreciate the sensitivities of Muslim societies round the world to a conflict in which non-Muslim governments confront a Muslim country. The very great care being taken by the US and our own Government to explain their actions and to stress that this is a battle against terrorism and certainly not against Islam is absolutely right.
I also know only too well how it feels to be, at the time of potential military action, on the inside looking out at external commentators, however well-intentioned and expert they think they are. At best, their views and speculations can be hopelessly wide of the mark and are often counter-productive. At worst, they can be unwittingly close to the highly classified and sensitive truth, and therefore dangerous. I shall be as careful as I can to try to avoid both those pitfalls.
248
I did not intend to mention Northern Ireland, but I shall echo my noble friend Lord Dubs. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, is not in her place, but I have to say that I was appalled at the terms she used in speaking of Cyril Ramaphosa, a great champion and hero of the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa and leader of the free trade union movement, and Martti Ahtisaari, whom I have the pleasure to know. He is not only a very distinguished former president of Finland, but was the special envoy from the UN charged with the sensitive task of bringing Namibia to independence. Neither man is easily hoodwinked, nor are they strangers to arms or conflict. I hope that the noble Baroness will review the language that she has now used twice in this House about these men.
Two days before the terrible events of 11th September, I read with dismay about the assassination in Northern Afghanistan of Ahmad Shah Massoud, the charismatic leader of the Northern Alliance—the Lion of Panshir, as he was known. He had been perhaps the most successful Mujaheddin leader in the fight against the Soviets and was greatly feared by the Taliban.
I read the reported details of the two so-called journalists with false passports. Some reports in the newspapers referred to Moroccans with Belgian passports. How clever for an interview with French-speaking Massoud. Whatever the accuracy of those newspaper details, their credentials must have been convincing to gain them access to him when they exploded their camera, killing themselves and fatally injury Massoud.
It is easy to recognise immediately the hallmark of bin Laden and his henchmen. I thought then how significant it was that he would do this enormous favour for the Taliban. Massoud was not a natural priority target for bin Laden, but he was a serious threat to the Taliban. That surely meant that bin Laden and his organisation, Al'Qaeda, were inextricably linked with the leadership of the Taliban. If one considers them to be that close—and today's Statement confirmed that, giving more evidence—it makes absolute nonsense of the charade that the Taliban have been performing since 11th September in their constant prevarications about their so-called "guest". I am glad to see that if they calculated that Massoud's murder would demoralise his own men and the other members of the Northern Alliance, now called the United Front, that was wrong. In fact in appears that it has inflamed them to fight to seek revenge from Massoud's death.
Whatever form the government of Afghanistan take in the future, it has to be something better than the Taliban. What is vital is the pledge that we will not turn our backs on Afghanistan again afterwards. That pledge was given by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in his powerful speech last Tuesday in Brighton, when he also promised that the humanitarian coalition would be assembled alongside the military coalition and that the world community must show its capacity for compassion as much as for force. Those pledges were repeated in today's

249
Statement. That is the twin-track approach which was advocated by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, earlier today.
Everyone agrees that nothing at all can ever justify the terrible barbarism of 11th September. However, I have become increasingly concerned by commentators who, always carefully prefacing their remarks with, "Nothing can of course justify or excuse", then go on to talk about looking for explanations and usually end up with American foreign policy in general and the Palestinian/Israeli conflict in particular. Well, I am sorry, I do not accept that approach for one minute. "Explain" is in this context as unacceptable a word as excuse" or "justify". The faults in the Versailles Treaty and the shortcomings of the Weimar Republic cannot "explain" Auschwitz or Belsen—and no grievances can "explain" 11th September.
I was most pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick, made that distinction very clearly in his speech when he turned to the Middle East and went out of his way to say that of course that has nothing to do with an explanation for 11th September. Unfortunately, not all speakers made that distinction so clearly.
Bin Laden wants, among other things, to exterminate Israel, as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said in his impressive speech. And bin Laden wants to drive the US out of the Middle East and he wants his version of Islam to be predominant. Does anyone seriously believe that he or his followers care about any peace process or fair settlement? That is not to deny what we must all want—a just settlement of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict—but it has to be justice for both sides. That means justice for the Palestinians and also justice for Israel.
I have to say that I have not found all today's contributions on the Middle East either as fair or balanced in that connection. When one invokes UN resolutions on the Middle East, let us never forget the UN resolution of more than 50 years ago which created the state of Israel. That also must be honoured.
I conclude with a word about the special forces, who are currently much discussed in the media by people with varying degrees of expertise or wisdom and sometimes with not a great deal of either. I believe that the less said in public about the special forces the better.
Having had some contact with them in the past, I should like to say that wherever they might be, and might or might not be doing, I know them to be capable of astonishing feats of courage, endurance and achievement. We in the United Kingdom are extremely fortunate that we can be confident in their ability to carry out whatever is asked of them.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by joining other noble Lords in expressing great appreciation of the Government's demonstration of solidarity with the United States in its declaration of war against international terrorism, in ways which have been both principled and practical.
250
However, there are a number of concerns which I wish to raise based on first-hand experience of working in some of the areas directly associated with international terrorism. But, first, as Islamic terrorism has been the main focus of investigations following the attacks on New York and Washington, I join other noble Lords in emphasising the great importance of taking every precaution to avoid Islamophobia, by making that fundamental distinction between the religion of Islam and the ideology of violent Islamism, and also the importance of the Government's commitment to take the threat of violent Islamism very seriously. Otherwise, the Islamist terrorists' activities may generate a backlash against the vast majority of the peaceable Muslims who live in our midst.
The aspect of violent Islamism which I wish to address briefly relates to this country, to Azerbaijan, Indonesia and the Sudan. I have been interested to read accounts of measures now being taken against avowed Islamists living here in the United Kingdom, such as Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammed. Only two days ago, The Times reported that British authorities have begun to crack down on militant Muslims who use Britain as a sanctuary for fundraising and inciting terrorism.
I hope that it will not be unhelpful, or be seen to be arrogant, if I remind your Lordships' House that in January of last year I gave detailed examples of some of the ways in which Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammed and other Islamists, such as the Afghan veteran Abu Hamza, were recruiting and training Islamists in this country. I also drew attention to a very powerful film on the "Despatches" series, which shows those Islamist teachers teaching their ideology and the tactics of Islamist terrorism. That film was screened on our national TV in August of 1999.
I raise this matter because people are asking many questions. Why did it take so long for the authorities to begin to act? How many recruits have been trained in Islamist terrorism here in Britain in the intervening two years? How many have been sent abroad to fight in jihads to gain military experience? How much money has been raised in this country and used for deadly purposes? Why have the authorities allowed organisations such as Al Muhajiroun to demonstrate and to use language inciting racial hatred and violence with apparent impunity?
It appears that a great deal of licence has been given to those who have been recruiting and training terrorists here in Britain—until the terrible events in New York and Washington occurred. It is of particular concern that many of the men who carried out those appalling acts had been in or had passed through this country.
I ask these questions and raise these issues, not in a spirit of recrimination, but because they are legitimate concerns felt by many people who would welcome reassurance. Furthermore, because they demonstrate why any measures proposed by the Government to correct those problems should be strongly supported. I have today gratefully received a letter from the Minister which addresses some of these issues.

251
Another concern relates to funding Islamist terrorism either directly or indirectly in the guise of charitable organisations. Last Tuesday, International Herald Tribune reported the United States initiatives to block the assets of charities suspected of aiding Osama bin Laden's Al'Qaeda network:
"Officials tracking Mr bin Laden's Al'Qaeda network say they have found a sophisticated Financial infrastructure that stretches from the United Arab Emirates to Europe, to Indonesia, and uses mechanisms as varied as charitable organisations, manufacturing companies and credit card fraud to raise money and move it around the globe".
The Government are to be fully supported in taking any similar measures. However, are there similar proposals to clamp down on infiltration of non-charitable organisations by those associated with Islamist terrorism? A report in the Sunday Times last year alleged that a Sudanese business man, Salah Idris—believed to be an Islamist and a friend of Osama bin Laden—is a major shareholder in many firms, including those responsible for security at the Houses of Parliament, the Royal Courts of Justice, British Airways and Texaco. It would seem a serious threat to security, to have people apparently with terrorist connections engaged at the highest level in financial systems responsible for some of our most politically and strategically significant institutions.
Many people were not satisfied with the Written Answer of 9th October 2001, which implied that there was no cause for concern because Salah Idris had no day-to-day involvement in the running of the company. That seems nave in the extreme. Can the Minister say whether such possible Islamist penetration into key organisations will be subject to more rigorous investigation?
Looking abroad, I returned two days ago from Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh, where the people expressed deep concern at the well-recorded activities of Islamist terrorists in neighbouring Azerbaijan. That was my 52nd visit to the region. Many visits were during the bitter war in 1991–94, when Azerbaijan's self-confessed policy of ethnic cleansing of Armenians from Karabakh was at its height and the Armenians were trying to defend their right to live in their historic land against impossible odds.
During that war, the Azeri leadership enlisted more than 1,000 Islamist mujaheddin mercenaries—including Arab veterans of the Afghan war. Some of bin Laden's senior military commanders fought in at least two battles in Karabakh. So the Armenian people have already held one front line against Islamist terrorism without any help from western countries. Britain, with its huge oil interests in Azerbaijan, generally favoured Azerbaijan.
That favourable attitude towards Azerbaijan has continued despite long-standing reports of continuing Islamist terrorist activity condoned or supported by the Azeri leadership. In August 1998, the Azerbaijan branch of the Islamic Jihad—which by then had merged with Osama bin Laden's Al'Qaeda—repeatedly played a vital role as a communications centre during the bombing of US embassies in Kenya
252
and Tanzania that killed 224 people and wounded several thousand. During those operations, 60 calls from a satellite phone used by bin Laden were reportedly made to his associates in Baku and from them to operatives in East Africa.
The story continues in October 1999, when an article in Defence & Foreign Affairs Strategic Policy by the expert on Islamist terrorism, Yossef Bodansky, entitled The New Azerbaijan Hub: How Islamist Operations are Targeting Russia, Armenia & Nagorno Karabakh, described in chilling detail the activities of Islamists in Azerbaijan—including the training of suicide warriors and the smuggling of weapons and money, sometimes under the guise of supporting charitable organisations.
The Chechen Islamist leader, Muvladi Udugov, has said publicly that he is happy to assist Azerbaijan with a so-called resolution of the Karabakh problem—confirming the policy that Islamists should first seize Chechnya, then Dagestan and Karabakh, which was destined to become a centre for Islamist terrorist activities.
Canada has now included Azerbaijan on the list of countries where terrorists are trained and has instigated a policy of special checks for people with links to Azerbaijan trying to enter Canada. Meanwhile, the US embassy in Baku is reportedly denying permission for Azeri citizens to enter the United States after US State Department officials placed Azerbaijan on the list of countries supporting international terrorism. I therefore ask the Minister whether Her Majesty's Government have similar policies in place with regard to Azerbaijan. If, so, perhaps he could indicate what they are. If not, why not?
I have also recently had the privilege of visiting Indonesia and travelling to the exotically-named Spice Islands or the Moluccas, which had been a kind of Paradise but which have become a kind of hell. Indonesia had a reputation for religious tolerance, where Muslim and Christian communities lived peacefully together. However, in the Moluccas, the situation changed tragically in January 1997 when violent conflict erupted. That conflict has since claimed the lives of thousands and driven hundreds of thousands from their homes to live as internally displaced people in harsh conditions in the jungle.
Through my organisation, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, I have been working with the traditional Muslim and Christian leaders. We met members of both communities during our recent visit to the islands of Ambon and Seram. They expressed their grave fears over the arrival of between 2,000 to 3,000 Lasker Jihad warriors who were stirring up religious conflict and engaging in militant activities. There is widespread concern in the Moluccas that the Lasker Jihad will take over this strategic part of Indonesia for militant Islamism. There is therefore an urgent need, which I hope the Government will be able to meet, to encourage and support the new administration in Indonesia in any policy needed to contain militant

253
Islamic developments in Molucca and to encourage reconciliation and reconstruction between the communities in the conflict-ridden areas.
I refer briefly to Sudan. The United Nations Security Council has lifted sanctions, but the day after those sanctions were lifted the Islamist National Islamic Front regime released El Turabi from gaol. El Turabi was the mastermind behind Sudan's terrorist activities. He and the regime have longstanding connections with Osama bin Laden and numerous terrorist organisations. Professor Eric Reeves, a scholar with deep knowledge of Sudan, wrote on 28th September:
"The mountain of evidence linking Osama bin Laden and Sudan's National Islamic Front continues to grow—and it is clear that the links arc emphatically in the present tense. Al-Shamel hank is, for the moment, only the most conspicuous financial link…Just as significantly, construction and agricultural interests in Sudan continue to supply bin Laden and his Al'Qaeda organisation with huge revenues. And, in an extremely important development, the Khartoum regime is revealed today in a report from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to have 'arranged for diplomatic credentials for bin Laden followers, allowing them unfettered travel around the world—.
The Hindustan Times writes:
"The State Department and the Bush administration had best think long and hard before going further down the road of 'co-operation' with a Khartoum regime that is still clearly in the terrorism business. There are a host of additional links between Khartoum and bin Laden and Al'Qaeda that are only now emerging in the wake of the horrors of September 11…The United Stales will have betrayed its declared goal in confronting world terrorism if it does not face up squarely to these ongoing realities [in Sudan]".
Those words apply equally to the United Kingdom.
The sophistication of the attacks in New York and Washington prove that Islamist terrorism has created a large, well-funded and widespread network of organisations with a ruthless agenda, supported by people who are so fanatic that they desire to commit suicide in fulfilment of their life's mission. At stake is the abuse of the freedoms democracy enshrines by those who would destroy those freedoms and, indeed, democracy itself with weapons which have no historical precedent.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the House that the Government's response now, although in some ways late as far as this country is concerned, will not be little. I hope also that the Government will receive appropriate support for whatever may be needed to contain this menace to our security, freedom and civilisation.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I am the 55th speaker today. I accept all the usual responses—"It was a terrible attack." "We must do something about it." "The fight will go on for a long time", and so on—but let me speak about matters which have not been mentioned before.
I do not like the word "terrorism". It is too loose and it is very difficult to apply to whoever we do not like. I have said in the House in the past that normally in our former colonies terrorists became Prime Ministers.
254
One British Prime Minister called Nelson Mandela a terrorist and the head of a terrorist organisation. It does not do to use the word "terrorism" or to have a war against terrorism. That is like the war against drugs; it has gone on and will go on for ever.
I should like to understand what it is that makes these people—these militants, terrorists. liberation fighters or whatever—do what they do. It is very important not to say merely that they are cowardly and fanatical—all that is irrelevant—we must understand them.
The roots of this family of terrorism lie in an ethnic nationalism which is fired by religion. When you combine a primordial ethnic nationalism with a religion which has a very large reach, you get a phenomenon which is rooted in the people and which has a very long reach. Those people who are Islamic terrorists obviously conic from a background of a post-colonial fight over Palestine, the break-up of the Ottoman Empire and the mess that it made, and the part that the West played.
We have to understand that these people sincerely believe in what they do and are willing to stake their lives. If they are willing to stake their lives, we must understand why they do so. I do not think that it is helpful to say that Islam is a religion of peace; that there are peaceful Muslims and that these people are horrible. All religions are religions of peace and all religions have been involved in wars.
I am the only speaker today who cannot be called a child of Abraham. I am not a child of Abraham; I am an atheist. Even were I not an atheist, I would not be a child of Abraham. Abraham's children have a habit of quarrelling and killing each other which they have practised for the past two millennia. With all the sincerity that I can command, I believe that religion is part of the problem and not part of the solution. As a young man, I thought religion would disappear. I am astonished that it is still around and doing as much harm as it does.
These people, these primordial nationalists, have a cause. That cause is partly to do with Palestine and partly to do with the history of the decline of Islamic states, particularly in Arabia. We must try to understand why, over the 20th century, the one region which did not modernise, the one region which did not develop, is that part of the Middle East which we call Arabia.
It is quite astonishing that although we are in favour of democracy and modernity and so on, our allies in the Middle East are not democrats; they are kings. Despite the wealth that has been accumulated in the Middle East since 1973. they have treated their people like dirt. Let us make no mistake about that. One of the criticisms made by Osama bin Laden—and he is much more against the Saudi sultans than he is against America—is that these are hypocrites who, in the name of Islam, accumulate a lot of wealth and then go and gamble it in Monte Carlo.
One of the arguments is about a purer life. We should understand that because it was the Puritans in the 17th century who fought a civil war here and then

255
unsettled America. They were also that kind of people. We really must understand where this phenomenon comes from.
There used to be a modernising movement in Islam through much of the inter-war and post-war period. Indeed, in the Middle East the Ba'ath Party, which was a secular, modern party, was undermined by the fact that the oil wealth was situated in the territories of the most feudal elements in the Middle East who have encouraged the reversal of modernity in Islam and have gone back to the primordial fundamentalist route of the Wahabis and others. All that has been funded by oil money. It may redound on the sultanates of the Middle East if the war goes on for a long time. It is an unintended but predictable consequence of the war that we shall not have any sultanates left in the Middle East.
I know that that will cause a problem with regard to the price of oil, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said. However, we should care about more than the price of oil. It is because we care only about the price of oil in the Middle East that the Middle East is the mess it is. The Middle East is not just a source of oil and a consumer of arms; people actually live there. We have not thought about the people who live there. We have treated them as a vast blank mass. Is it not surprising that the only modern Muslim "near democracy" in the entire region is Pakistan? We must be careful about Pakistan, which is in a fragile situation. I say to many of my Indian friends, "Do not celebrate the likely disintegration of Pakistan; you will have five Talibans, one of them equipped with nuclear power". It is in the interest of all of us to make quite sure that whatever demands we make on Pakistan we do not topple it because an unstable, fragmented Pakistan will pose a much bigger danger in the Middle East, partly because it will be seen to be a failure of a modernising experiment in Islam. That is why, despite the problems that Pakistan has—I shall not detain your Lordships with those—it is important that it should be shored up and defended.
We ought to concentrate on the long-term consequences and the shape of the post-war settlement in the Middle East. We have in our universities the intellectual resources to be able to start two kinds of studies. One should study the nature of terrorists, how they function and where they are recruited. Some naïve theories about poverty and deprivation can be discarded; we must study the ideological and functional base of terrorism. We have the resources to do that; let us use them.
Further, we must use our resources to plan how we shall develop and modernise Arabia, if I may call it that, when the war is over or during the course of it because we have not considered the miserable human development conditions in Saudi Arabia. For many years I have been associated with a UN human development report. A favourite conclusion we reach is that despite low GDP a country can have a high human development index, high longevity, a high level of education and high income. However, countries where incomes are high can have citizens with low
256
longevity who are illiterate. We contrasted the position in Sri Lanka and in Oman. Oman is a rich country but its people live in a miserable condition. In Saudi Arabia a woman cannot drive a car or cannot leave the country without the permission of a male relative. That is a violation of fundamental human rights. If we are in the business of attacking the Taliban, let us also state to our allies in the Middle East, "You are our friends but you ought to do better than you are doing". That is very important.
I should like to make a final point. Many noble Lords have mentioned the problem of Palestine. The problem goes back either to 1948 or it is a recent one. I believe that the election of Mr Ariel Sharon as Prime Minister was for many people in the region almost the Final straw. It represented a total loss of hope. But in Israel Prime Ministers change every 10 months and Mr Sharon will go. Let us hope that a Labour Prime Minister is then elected so that the debate as it was until January of this year can be revived. In doing so, however, I hope that we shall not see a bilateral meeting held in Camp David. Instead let there be a multinational gathering involving the European Union, the United States and many Arab countries of the region to discuss the problem of Palestine in a comprehensive manner. We must avoid solving one problem and then creating more difficulties in other places. That might then create new nationalist demands and others would then resort to terrorist attacks to have those demands met.
It will be a difficult task, but while we fight this war in military and other dimensions, we should be thinking hard about how we could do better by Arabia than we have done so far.
8.41 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, this has been an amazing debate, full of wisdom and experience. Like other noble Lords, I support the Government's determination to bring justice to bear on those responsible for the terrible horrors which took place in New York and Washington. Such an outrage undoubtedly demands an appropriate and proportionate response.
I was interested to learn recently that the principle of "An eye for an eye" was first codified into law in Mesopotamia more than 5,000 years ago. But of course the teaching of the philosophy of "An eye for an eye" has limiting as well as well as permissive aspects. Yes, you can take an eye for an eye, but you must not take more than an eye. Perhaps that is not uninteresting in the present circumstances.
Neither terrorism nor our response to it will solve the fundamental, long-term problems of the relationship between Islam and the West. I suggest that there are two groups of problems: the political problems and problems of a difference in fundamental values, which were first referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. Other noble Lords have discussed the political issues with far more expertise than I could, so I shall not presume to trespass on to that ground. However, when it comes to fundamental

257
values, I have, curiously, some modest qualification to speak. That is because, in the latter part of his life, my father became a Muslim. Of course he was not a fundamentalist; he was a contemplative. Although I did not follow him down that route, I learned to respect the teachings of Islam.
We are not concerned here with two values—Islam and the Christian West—but rather with three values: the values of Islam; the values of Christianity and the values of secular materialism. Christianity and Islam share a view of the world which is based on the belief that there is some power greater than the forces of nature and man's natural intelligence. They believe that there is a purpose and meaning to man's life here. They believe that there are truths which the human brain cannot understand and that those truths are important. Since time immemorial it has been the role of the revealed religions of the world to try to help men to live their lives on earth in harmony with those higher values.
Both Christianity and Islam see this task in the context of a theistic vision of the universe, but they work out the details of their message to humanity in different ways. However, the fundamental message and the fundamental values are the same. Secular materialism is different. It is not theistic and does not envisage any higher power than the forces of nature and man's ingenuity. Its aims are personal happiness, individual freedom, material well-being and freedom from pain, which are all most desirable.
Over past centuries Christianity and Islam have had to come to terms with secular materialism, and they have done so in different ways. At this point I look nervously at the Bishops. Christianity has taken the route of compromise. I suggest that for the vast majority of Christians today their religion is an "optional extra", tacked on to the secular materialistic values by which we live.
Islam is different. Islam tends to be a way of life. It certainly does not exclude materialism. But for a Muslim believer, materialism, however important it may be, takes second place. As has been said by, I believe, two noble Lords, the great fear of most moderate Muslims today and, indeed, also of the tiny minority of fundamentalists, is that Islam is being subsumed into the secular materialism of the West as Christianity has very largely been already. That would change the whole nature of Islam and of Muslim society.
In what I considered to be an extremely important speech, the noble Lord, Lord Temple-Morris, referred to globalisation and the perceived imbalance of economic power between Islam and the West. He suggested that that was among the causes of the fanatical attack on the United States. He drew attention to the fact that many Muslim societies see the West as exercising a form of quasi-colonialism and said that they fear that the values of their society are being eroded. At the level of beliefs and values, I am sure that it is that threat to the values and beliefs of their society which frightens all true Muslim believers.
258
I have risen to speak briefly today because I believe that, if the West wants peaceful co-existence with Islam, we need to understand those deep fears and to respect them. As the noble Lord, Lord Temple-Morris, said, we need to engage with Islam as a friend and, perhaps I may add, with some humility. If we do not, we shall play into the hands of the fanatics and fundamentalists and we shall help them to recruit support. We shall then be forced into a terrible war of attrition without an ending.
There is a need for understanding; there is a need for dialogue; and there is a need for humility from the Western world. Muslim society may have its faults, but so does our own. Indeed, conceivably we may even sometimes be able to learn from them.
The Christian Churches have, in a sense, a foot in both camps—the theistic camp and the Western materialist camp. They could do much to improve mutual understanding and peaceful co-existence between Islam and the West. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester referred to work which is already being done. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, threw down a challenge. He said that religion is part of the problem. Well, let the Christian Churches do something about it. In that context, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury introduced a debate last January in which I spoke. He urged the Churches to do more to prevent international conflict. I believe that now is the moment for him to prove his point.
8.49 p.m.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, there has been some talk in this place and outside it of the idealism that underlies the activities that led to the events of 11th September. I believe that we need to look at the full extent of the results of those events before we accept the verity of those propositions. It has been said often that the aim of the terrorists has been to help the poor and the dispossessed in the Middle East and in other parts of the world. I believe that the remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London were extremely interesting in that respect. I should like to draw colleagues' attention to them when they look at Hansard tomorrow.
I draw even more attention to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, who briefly quoted from a report by the World Bank on the effects that the attacks would have on child mortality around the world. I should like to detain the House for a moment by quoting rather more extensively than the noble Baroness had time to do. I refer to a report in the International Herald Tribune of 1st October, which quoted the words of James Wolfensohn, president of the World Bank. He said:
"there is another human toll that is largely unseen and one that will be felt in all parts of the developing world, especially Africa. We estimate that between 20,000 and 40,000 more children will die worldwide and some 10 million people will be condemned to live below the poverty line of $1 a day because of the terrorist attacks. … the economic fallout from the attacks would cause several poor countries to stall or fall into recession because of a sharp decline in exports, the collapse of tourism and steep drops in commodity prices and investment … There is an absolutely clear link between the drop in economic activity and infant mortality and poverty".

259
When we read reports of the airline business and the tourist trade being hit we need to bear in mind the extremely profound truth that a hidden economic suffering will be imposed on the poorest people, who are supposed to be candidates for receiving the sympathy and support of Mr bin Laden and his friends. I very much hope that Ministers in this country will hammer away again and again at that theme and that they will show people that this matter is not just about 7,000 people being struck down in New York City; it is also about the effects on the poor around the world. We are far from having heard the end of the story.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, struck an extremely important note when he pointed out that the incubation period of attacks of this sort involves not just months but very often years. It therefore follows that other attacks are already now in the process of incubation. If I interpret the noble Lord correctly, it is not just likely that we shall have more outrages of this sort; it is absolutely certain. I am grateful to him for indicating his assent. That will have further implications on child mortality in the poorest parts of the world. I hope that noble Lords will emphasise those matters on every possible occasion in this country and in public fora elsewhere.
I am afraid that it used to be said by certain sorts of people that it was high time the Americans got their comeuppance and that we would see what would happen if they were ever hit by terrorism. Americans, it was said, had a soft society, were decadent, would crack and could not take it like the rest of us.
As it happens, I was in Manhattan eating my breakfast on the morning of 11th September. I was there for a few days afterwards as well. New Yorkers did not crack or run. They knew perfectly well, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, that there might be more attacks any day. They did not send their children off to the country and there were no attempts to construct air raid shelters or to get hold of survival equipment. The spirit of the New Yorker showed itself in an absolutely magnificent manner. Moreover, their sense of humour remained inviolate. We should all be extremely grateful for that.
I shall not add to the many wise words of analysis of the reasons for terrorism or the recommendations of policy changes for this country or other countries. However, I want to say one or two words about some things that I think we should do in this country and could usefully do in this House.
In particular, I want to talk about intelligence matters. There are four elements in intelligence work. There is the collection of the product, its collation and analysis, the distribution of the product in the right form to the right people to ensure that those who should get the message get it and, finally, the protection of the product. We need to look at all four elements of intelligence work in our operations.
Initially, in respect of the collection of the product, I echo everything that has already been said about the need for more resources—in fact, I said in this House
260
not so many weeks ago that I thought that more resources should be given to intelligence work, especially human intelligence work. There is a massive investment in this country, not all of it revealed to the public gaze, underpinning the work of general communications headquarters. That is a good investment. However, nothing approaching that amount of investment is made in the human intelligence work of the other services.
On collation, analysis and distribution, I want to say a word or two about the extremely valuable contribution made by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. I am so glad that he is here with us in this House. I never thought that we would see him here—that is not a reflection on his health—but I am delighted that he is.
I agree entirely with what he said about the need for a Minister for Intelligence. I shall let out one secret: I discussed precisely that proposition with three Members of the present Cabinet in the immediate run-up to the 1997 general election. My advice was not taken—possibly because they thought that I was hawking myself for the job; so perhaps their wisdom was greater than it might appear. It is absolutely impossible for the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister to have time to take care of those services and invigilate them properly. That is absurd. What is more, my information is that the services themselves would welcome such ministerial control, because it would give them a higher profile in government and greater regular access to Cabinet Ministers.
I disagree with my noble friend on one point about the reporting methods of the Committee on Intelligence and Security. I originally agreed with him that it ought to be a Select Committee reporting to the House. As my noble friend knows, I served on the committee for a couple of years during the Parliament when it was set up by Mr Major. I am convinced that the present arrangements are preferable.
When I was a member of the committee, we used to meet regularly—although not frequently—face-to-face with the Prime Minister and could raise any subject that we liked with him across the table in No. 10. As far as I know, that privilege is not given to any Select Committee of the other place. There is no problem about reporting to the House because the Prime Minister is under a statutory duty to transmit the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee to the House of Commons—after, of course, making provision for any sidelining that he thinks appropriate.
However, there is something that this House ought to do about the matter. It is absurd that we have that committee set up by a statute that says that it must have at least one member from each House. Eight members of the committee are from the House of Commons—worthy people, but some of them with a rather tenuous connection with the fields of defence, security and intelligence. There is only one member from this House—my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell.

261
The House of Commons also has the benefit of a Defence Committee consisting of nine members which receives regular briefings on classified matters. It has a Foreign Affairs Committee which, from time to time, receives briefings on classified matters. This House has no committees whatever of which I am aware that at any time receive briefings on classified matters. It is absurd that we make no use whatever on a day-to-day basis of the talents that exist in this place on the Cross-Benches, I am delighted to see a new recruit on the Liberal Benches in the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, and on the Conservative Benches as well. That is a ridiculous situation.
I hope that the Government will understand that a well-informed committee is supportive of the work of the department and agencies that it scrutinises. A sensible Secretary of State, one with any self-confidence at all, will welcome a committee doing part of his work for him in scrutinising his department and making helpful recommendations. I have said before that I see no reason that this House, like the Senate in the United States, should be inhibited from having the same committees here as exist at the other end of the corridor.
I hope that my noble friend will be able to say that at the very least he will initiate discussions on these matters with the Opposition. He and I had a discussion before the Recess—I hope he will not mind my disclosing this—on these matters. I was asking whether he could find some way to extend the amount of classified briefing coming to Members of this House. My noble friend was extremely helpful and said that he would like to talk about the matter. When I had a job at the Ministry of Defence I did my little bit to brief Members who had a serious interest in defence matters, within the range of secrecy. I hope that the Government will be able to initiate discussions with the other parties so that at this time this House can play a much more vigorous and useful role in supporting the Government and also in reinforcing public morale.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Weidenfeld: My Lords, the Prime Minister has lent an overtone of hope and lofty aspiration to the mood of grim determination to fight and win an existential struggle. The need for a wide-ranging coalition in the first phase of what President Bush warned may be a five or even a 10-year war, is unarguable; indeed it is essential. But realpolitik must not too crassly turn into surrealpolitik.
Some of today's rogue states cannot change overnight into guardians of international order, nor can select terrorist organisations be upgraded to freedom fighters. The bombs and bullets of Hamas, Hezbollah, jihad or DPFLP aimed at civilians by suicidal fanatics cannot suddenly obtain a higher moral rating that those fired by the Al'Qaeda and its associated gangs.
It has been understood that in the interests of the cause Israel should not be a formal member of the alliance, and its government have undertaken, as they
262
did before in the Gulf war when it sustained the onslaught of 39 Iraqi Scud missiles, not to retaliate. At that time Prime Minister Shamir exercised utmost restraint, and I happen to believe that Prime Minister Sharon will also hold back. But this is now the point at which we should firmly face the underlying verities of this war against enemies visible or invisible.
Causes of war, war aims and the final outcome are equally important elements of historical equation. Obscurantism at the beginning colours the course and tends to threaten the end of a great enterprise. The causes of this war lie back generations ago in the merciless and bitter fight of an unholy alliance ranging from atheist revolutionaries, mercenaries and organised criminals to religious and racist fanatics. Their common enemy is the open society, liberal order and western-style democracy. True idealists might mingle with cynical opportunists and barbarous fanatics, intermittently rallying together or feuding between each other.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a very important issue, but it is not the root cause of this war. It may serve as a symbol for rage and thirst for revenge on the part of humiliated Arabs and Muslims against the United States and the West, but it is also a lightning rod—an outlet for feudal and despotic regimes in the Arab world who are striving to deflect the bitterness of the oppressed masses away from themselves.
We know that Osama bin Laden's foremost aim is the deliverance of the whole of Araby from what he perceives as the corrupt, inept and depraved Saudi monarchy, lording it over Mecca and Medina. He hates them as much as—possibly more than—he hates Israel or world Jewry. Even if, by some miracle, the whole of Israel were to vanish into space, the terror groups now operating out of Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon and Sudan would not lay down their arms. They would still fight with great gusto against the West, and possibly also against each other.
The leaders of the alliance, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, hope that, if only we could mediate between Israelis and Palestinians without bile or bias and seize this moment before an unpredictable sequence of violence causes irreparable harm, the present crisis could yield an historic dividend. It has already done so elsewhere, with the remarkable and wholly welcome rapprochement with Putin's Russia—a country similarly beset by a tragedy caused by terrorism in its Caucasian enclaves.
The Mitchell report must be implemented, but the intifada must stop, for it relies on terrorism and carries a negative dynamic away from peace and reason. Israel's reaction—often over-reaction—to attacks on innocent civilians, as distinct from military objectives, has attracted great criticism, but, I submit in all diffidence, there cannot be a moral equivalence between those who aim deliberately at maximising casualties among noncombatants, preferably amassed in large numbers in public places, and those who defend themselves, even if sometimes disproportionately.

263
The basic Israeli argument is that under Prime Minister Barak they tried to offer terms that were widely regarded by the international community as eminently worthy of acceptance by the Palestinians. Chairman Arafat's refusal, in conjunction with the dismissive reaction of the late President Assad to the proposed return of the Golan Heights, created a feeling throughout the Israeli nation that here was an enemy no longer intent on peace through negotiation and compromise. It was an enemy who to the outside world endorses a negotiated peace but to its own constituency vows to stand for the ultimate liquidation of the Zionist entity.
This is no longer a question of borders, schedules of withdrawal or economic clauses. We face a terrible morass of fear, suspicion and stark pessimism. Lifelong pacifists and advocates of Israeli-Arab or Jewish-Muslim co-operation and acculturation have now turned into bitter and disillusioned peace sceptics. The Israeli psyche is no less disturbed than the Arab psyche. Confidence-building measures are absent. When the Israeli army withdrew from Lebanon, Hezbollah intensified its attacks and saw it not as a gesture of conciliation but as a sign of creeping enfeeblement.
Many of those who, like me, would wish to evacuate the isolated settlements in the Gaza area and on the West Bank feel that the time is not right and that such a move would be interpreted as the first step towards total capitulation. The absurd rumours about Jewish responsibility for the New York massacre are mindlessly repeated even by responsible Arab leaders. It is the state of mind among some of Israel's neighbours—minds filled with propaganda, systematic misinformation and incitement to hate and violence in school books and learning materials—that is so alarming. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, mention that important subject.
Thanks to the intervention of the European Union, some progress is being made on compiling new textbooks for territories under the Palestinian authority, yet most of the old and poisonous books, largely paid for by UNWRA or Brussels, are still in circulation. Even worse literature is current in Syrian schools. I recently asked the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, to look into Syrian school books for the fourth to the 11th grade which incite racial hatred and perpetual war, glorify suicide attacks and threaten destruction, not only of Israel but of the whole Jewish world community. I have sent specimens to the Foreign Office and eagerly hope that they will receive attention and lead to positive action. I am stressing that point because as we enter into an unchartable war against evil we must strike at the root. In the Middle Eastern countries nearly two-thirds of all inhabitants are under 18 years of age. That means that there are at least 120 million or more young people who for two generations have been brought up with a mindset which is completely hostile to compassionate understanding of the other side and bent on violent revenge.
264
The establishment of a Palestinian state is now almost nowhere questioned, but security remains, even more than before, the order of the day. Yasser Arafat remains the only valid interlocutor on the Palestinian side. Prime Minister Sharon and Shimon Peres are an indispensable team. Sharon has 80 per cent of the nation on his side. Peres is respected as a man of peace throughout the world. They both trust the goodwill of the president of the United States, the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the Chancellor of Germany as the three most honourable mediators in the West, but they also fear, rightly or wrongly, old enemies rising to the surface in Europe as well as in the wider world, bent on a long-held resolve to erode and destroy the state of Israel and at first try to achieve a Middle Eastern Munich-style settlement. They must be warned that while the present, or indeed the future, government of Israel may be ready to make great sacrifices, no Israeli leadership will ever preside over collective self-immolation in a wildfire caused by fanatical foes.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, I witnessed the tragedy of 11th September in New York and count acquaintances, even friends, among those atomised in the rubble of the World Trade Centre. I also sampled the mood and feelings of the American people. Let there be no doubt that the thousands of parents, spouses and friends of the victims of terror will not wish to share the patience of the kith and kin of the Lockerbie martyrs. They will want to see tangible punishment of the perpetrators and—I stress this point—those who have sheltered and succoured them.
If the war aims so inspiringly proclaimed by the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister can be achieved, it will have to mean that in the course of the conflict systemic changes in countries ruled by cynical tyrants must occur, through evolution and implosion in preference to bloody revolution and invasion. Still, how can we here tolerate regimes which in defiance of the international community continue to build arsenals of weapons of mass destruction? Will we have a ready answer if those tyrants employ their armoury as bargaining chips for blackmail or indeed for practical use?
If we have clarity of purpose and a robust will to persevere, we may free the world not only from the worst excesses of terrorism, but also bring freedom and prosperity to the downtrodden masses misruled and degraded by self-serving despots. But, as the American President and the British Prime Minister have made so abundantly clear, there is no half-way house between victory and abysmal failure. I believe that that victory can be achieved only if we aim at both the head and limbs of a worldwide monster, refuse to waver and show no mercy.
9.13 p.m.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, I find myself speaking in the gap due to an administrative error which left me off the Speakers' List. But I will follow the traditions of the gap and speak for a very short period.
I wish to make three points. I place on record my thanks and, I suspect, the thanks of the whole House, for the care and attention which the Prime Minister

265
and his wife have shown to the relatives of those feared dead. When the House met on 14th September I thanked the emergency telephone services on that occasion as I had used them. My son-in-law, Peter, was best man to Simon Turner who is feared dead. His wife, Liz, in London is seven and a half months pregnant so she could not travel to New York. Peter went on her behalf and I have to record that he received outstanding support from our consular services in New York and from everyone else involved.
For those of us who watched the church service of remembrance at St. Thomas' Episcopal, it was a moving event. Even more moving, Peter reported, was the time that the Prime Minister and his wife spent with the relatives and those representing relatives in the room at the side afterwards, along with Kofi Annan and the Mayor of New York.
I also record my thanks to those companies that have gone the extra yard. I can think of a number of companies with employees feared dead, and to the best of my knowledge, every one has shown generosity in looking after their kith and kin. I might also add, as an aside, a thank you to my youngest son who spotted that according to the Sun all our nationals were dead. He rang the editor and pointed out that they were feared dead. A correction appeared the next morning.
I know Pakistan reasonably well. I learnt to fly there. At that time, which is some time ago, I knew the border areas of Peshawar and Quetta quite well. It is a forbidding and very difficult part of the globe. It is desperately hard to control one way or the other—out or in. However hard we try, we should not forget that the Pakistan Government are a fragile ally, not because they wish to be so, but because of the nature of the Government and the situation that they face. My noble friend Lord Desai made some relevant points about that.
I refer again, as I did on the previous occasion, to the Tamil Tigers, known as the LTTE terrorists from Sri Lanka. They are the masters of suicide in the world today. They learnt their art from Hezbollah, and it is now reported from reliable sources in India that the LTTE is training some of the Al'Qaeda units in Afghanistan.
Returning to London, it is thought that there may be as many as 20,000 illegal immigrants from the Tamil community, many of whom sadly have links with the LTTE. They run petrol stations in London and are involved in extortion, drugs and money-changing rackets. The Government are right to investigate the money-changing boutiques and all the other sources of moving money around. But they must recognise that they must not confine their investigations only to Arab front organisations. I applaud what they have done so far and their announcement of new laws to deal with terrorists. Asian and Arab terrorists—indeed, all terrorists—have enormous patience, great cunning, great skill and, on the surface, incredible plausibility. We must be on our guard. We must be equally patient, very thorough and a little creative in rooting out the financial mechanisms that fuel terrorism. The tap of funding must be turned off.
9.18 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I shall make my first winding-up speech, in which I am standing in for my noble friend Lord Avebury. He had an accident on his bicycle on the way to the House this morning. Although he completed the journey, he was in severe pain, went to hospital, was detained there for some hours, and has now been released and has gone home.
We have had a sober debate, and even a sombre one. There has been little disagreement. Indeed, there is wide support for the Government's action and wide recognition that the terrorists of llth September were not representative of the Muslim community. There has been wide recognition of the desperate position of the Afghan people and the need to provide relief. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, pointed out the importance of not destroying the infrastructure as far as it still exists. It was agreed that it was not for the coalition to try to impose its own choice of new government for the Afghan people.
Three weeks ago our debate took place in the immediate aftermath of the murder of 7,000 in the USA. Today we have the opportunity of a more reflective debate. I am afraid that there is no reason to believe that there will be no further attempts by terrorists, some of which will succeed. It seems likely that one has succeeded today with the crash of an El-Al aeroplane into the Black Sea.
It is good that the USA has shown unexpected patience, restraint and a recognition of the need to apply force in a targeted and proportionate way. What is less good is that the passage of time makes it ever more obvious that there is no easy solution. We are not dealing with people with whom we can talk and reach a compromise agreement. Indeed, we may well be facing a hydra-headed monster and if we cut off Osama bin Laden and Al'Qaeda we may be faced with other organisations equally dangerous and equally malevolent.
It has been a long debate and therefore I want to touch only on a few contributions. We have had four distinguished contributions by maiden speakers. I mention a few of the others because the points they made were outside the mainstream of debate. My noble friend Lord Ashdown displayed a knowledge of Afghan geography, history and tribal politics matched only by that of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. Indeed, I was a little surprised at my noble friend's knowledge because I thought he was in the Special Boat Service and I did not think that Afghanistan was much of a country for boats. But he made the correct point that the Afghans are not fundamentalists and that the terrorists in their midst are foreigners.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford gave us a serious warning that needs to be heeded about the dangers of closed windows and of the grave hostility of the Muslim population in Bradford. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, and the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, were the real voices here of the Muslim community and they spoke with firmness and with good sense.

267
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, and my noble friend Lord Ezra warned us of the danger to energy supplies; oil in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and gas in the case of my noble friend Lord Ezra. Those are potentially serious consequences which may not be immediately obvious but which plainly exist and present a threat to our economies that is far more serious than those serious ones that have already occurred.
My noble friend Lord Alderdice gave a powerful and almost apocalyptic speech about the nature of terrorism. He said that it was not a matter of poverty but of belief. We heard alternative views from the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who emphasised his belief that it was a matter of poverty, and from the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who spoke of ethnic nationalism. I believe that my noble friend Lord Alderdice is right as regards the leaders, but it is also true that leaders can succeed only if the soil is ripe for them to do so, and that requires a discontented population among whom they live. Otherwise, like the Baader-Meinhof gang in Germany, where the soil was poor for them, they simply fizzle out. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, presented a powerful analysis and a very interesting and important four-point plan as regards a solution to the problem we now face.
My father was born and brought up on the island of Manhattan. I have many friends and family members who live in New York; fortunately none of them was a victim. I regard New York as my second home city and I always have a sense of thrill when I drive into New York from JFK, cross the Triboro' Bridge and see the magical skyline of Manhattan.
Those who bear the responsibility for this atrocity or have assisted must be hunted down and brought to justice. Nothing, but nothing, justifies what they have done. As one commentator said, they have been attacking the best of the USA not the worst of it. They have been attacking the energy and enthusiasm which makes the USA the powerhouse of the world economy. As the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, said, James Wolfensohn, President of the World Bank, told us that those who will suffer most from the economic consequences of the attack will be the people in the poorest parts of the developing world.
I am also a strong defender of human rights and that is what I want to concentrate on for the rest of my speech. I see no conflict between the effective punishment and prevention of terrorism and the protection of human rights in this country. I disagree with those who call for the modification or the limitation of the Human Rights Act. That Act and the European Convention on Human Rights contain their own mechanisms for dealing with crises such as those we now face. Several of the convention rights may be subject to restrictions which are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
268
Rights which may be subject to such restrictions include, under Article 8 of the convention, the right to respect for private and family life; under Article 10, the right to freedom of expression under Article 10; and, under Article 11, the right to freedom of assembly and association. Furthermore, under Article 15, there is a right of derogation. It states:
"In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting party may take measures derogating from its obligations under the Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law".
There is no doubt, on the basis of existing decisions on the interpretation of Article 15, that we are now facing a public emergency threatening the life of the nation. There are some provisions from which no derogation can be made. One is Article 3 of the convention. That prohibits torture or cruel or inhuman treatment. I believe and expect that the Government would not wish to contravene Article 3.
Within that framework, and taking into account the power of derogation, I believe that the Government can make all the changes of law which they reasonably could need to make to meet the situation that has now arisen.
There has been a discussion about ID cards. Some noble Lords have called for them, notably the noble Lords, Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Davies of Coity. Others, including my noble friend Lord Phillips, have rejected the idea of ID cards. It is clear that no immediate decision will be taken. They will not be included in the first tranche of legislation. There will be a consultation paper and in due course we shall have a proper opportunity to consider the merits and demerits of ID cards. Our position is that we shall need to be persuaded that ID cards will serve a useful purpose before we can agree to that proposal.
We strongly welcome, as a number of noble Lords have already indicated, the strengthening of laws against money laundering. We welcome the extension of laws against incitement to race hatred and to religious hatred. Indeed, previously we have argued that it should be extended to all hate crimes.
We see no problems about requiring air and sea carriers to give copies of their passenger lists to the police. There are problems with our present extradition laws which were shown up in the Pinochet case. There is no doubt that our extradition law needs simplification. Where that law can be simplified without undermining the necessary protection of the individuals who are threatened with extradition, we shall support it.
We see some problems with the automatic rejection of asylum to people with convictions for terrorism or suspected terrorism. The Geneva Convention on Refugees gives a right for those with a well-founded fear of persecution in their own country to claim asylum. The European Convention on Human Rights contains no right of asylum as such. However, deportation to a country in which the deportee would be likely to suffer torture or cruel or inhuman treatment has been held to be a breach of Article 3.

269
Any change in the right of asylum must not, we believe, therefore contain a power to deport an asylum seeker to a country where there is a likelihood that he will suffer persecution, torture, or cruel or inhuman treatment.
It may well be, however, that we should consider giving the United Kingdom courts a wider power to try charges of terrorist crimes against anyone found in this country, wherever that crime was committed. There is universal jurisdiction in the Prevention of Terrorism Acts but that applies only to offences of bombing or chemical or biological warfare. There may be a good case for widening that provision, to give UK courts jurisdiction over all terrorist-linked offences.
One aspect of the Home Secretary's speech yesterday causes us serious concern—his attitude to the judiciary. In an article in The Times this morning, the Home Secretary writes that:
"British democracy was not created by lawyers or judges. It was created through the struggle and the political engagement of the
That is true but democracy is preserved and underpinned by the rule of law—and the rule of law is enforced by the judiciary. Judges have an essential part in the enforcement of the rule of law.
The Home Secretary appears to be trying to water down the right of judicial review. The fact that there is a crisis does not prevent a Minister from taking a decision that is ultra vires, in breach of natural justice or irrational. Ministers' decisions should continue to be subject to judicial review. In times of crisis, it is at least as important as in times of calm and peace for there to be a right to judicial review.
The Roman poet Virgil wrote—I shall quote him in English translation rather than in Latin:
"Amid clash of arms, laws are silent".
That must not be said of this country. Amid the clash of arms in this country, the laws must not be silent. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—who was the sponsor of the Human Rights Act, is now its protector through his department and is head of the judiciary—will fight to ensure that any new legislation is compatible with that Act and that the rule of law is not overriden. Those matters will have to be looked at in more detail when the legislation comes before us.
In closing, I do not wish to give any impression that we are hostile to what the Government have done and are doing. The Government's policy of international action against terrorism has our full support.
9.32 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I admit that I approach my task this evening with a deep sense of humility. I have listened throughout the day to many speeches by those who clearly have a deep understanding of, and expertise in, matters related to the subject under debate whereas I profess no specific expertise whatsoever and feel somewhat inadequate for the task before me.
270
I was in the south of France on 11th September, enjoying what I thought was a well-earned rest. In the middle of the afternoon, my daughter came on the phone and said, "Dad, have you got your television on?" I thought that was a strange question. I said no. My daughter said, "Put it on. Terrorists are attacking New York". There before us, in all its ghastly horror—all the more poignant for the beautiful scenery outside the window—was a monstrous attack in full view, for us all to see. That coverage on French television of a horrific and developing situation was available for 72 hours. I mention that because if such coverage was available in France, those events would almost certainly have been seen in every country of the world. One of the impacts of that amazing piece of modern technology which occasionally gives one frightening insights into what is happening in the world is that exposure to that horrible event by everyone everywhere brings the realisation to all national communities that they are vulnerable to acts of that kind.
Therefore, it is with considerable pleasure that one is able to offer the absolute support of our party to both the President of the United States and, indeed, the Prime Minister of this country for the tremendous work that they have been doing since that time. I hope that it will not be misunderstood if I say that we must use the horror from that dreadful event to build a world-wide alliance to try to counter the menace which has appeared within our midst. We need to appreciate that what has appeared within our midst is just that.
As a novice I am capable of misinterpretation. However, If I understand the security situation correctly we have to assume that cells of these terrorists are likely to be within our own communities now. That is not a comfortable thought. I shall not grace such terrorists with a religious connotation. I am not an historian but my view of history is clear; that is, that groups of people over the centuries and millennia have corrupted religious purposes for their own means and ends.
We need also to be aware of the dreadful economic impact which that single event may have. The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, and my noble friend Lady Cox touched on that point. The world's economy was already slowing. It is estimated that this event will slow it further and that that could mean that an additional 10 million people, probably largely in Africa, could fall below the poverty line. I do not refer to the rather rich and soft poverty line that we discuss in this country in relation to our affairs, which I believe is 50 per cent of the national minimum wage, or some such figure. We are talking of an income of a dollar a day. That is a harsh existence indeed.
Therefore, that is a matter which should concentrate the minds, not only of ourselves but of countries across the world. For the sake of all the less well-off people in the world, we cannot afford to have such an event repeated. That is the fundamental lesson that we need to learn.
I have not been able to ascertain whether it was the President of the United States or our Prime Minister who first used the phrase, "A war on terrorism". That

271
is a difficult concept. It is certainly not a war in any conventional sense. It will be a war of intelligence. There may be very limited military action but I cannot see much scope for the military in the longer term, although there may be some short-term activity simply to deal with the immediate situation of a particular bundle of terrorists in a particular country.
What will be much more significant over time is that this will be a war of legislation, of justice, of bringing people to court; it will be a war of intelligence. As has been said by many Members, it will be also a war of politics. There have been many speeches reminding us that if you cannot win the hearts and minds of men then you cannot win. Therefore it will be a battle for hearts and minds.
As far as concerns the immediate effects in this country, we will of course require to look now at our own legal structures. I am not an expert on that. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, made such an expert resume of the laws that will be immediately looked at and those which have been promised, either through the Labour Party conference last week or subsequently through the press, it would be pointless for me to go over the detail of those laws. The detail will be revealed when we get a legislative package before Parliament in the near future, but it seems to me that there are perhaps one or two questions I should invite the Minister to consider about that package.
If we are to win this war of politics—and other countries will face the same problem—we have to carry with us all the British people. The British people are aware that they are involved in a war and are ready to accept, if necessary, some sacrifice of their human rights in order to win it. But if this is a war and we hope to win it, then it is a temporary situation. Therefore I suggest that the laws we bring in should be temporary, to at least the extent that they have provisions within them for a regular review to ensure that it is still necessary for them to continue on the statute book; a kind of rolling sunset clause. I ask for an assurance that the Government will consider this in the Bills that they bring forward.
It would be interesting to know whether we will be seeing legislation which consists of free-standing Bills in their own right or we will simply be amending existing legislation. Finally, it would help all of us if we knew the timescale in which these proposals may be brought forward.
For our part, we have offered our backing for the Government in what they wish to do. However, it must be said that the backing is not completely unconditional. Everyone in this Chamber has sufficient experience to know that no government is a complete repository of all correctness, rectitude and knowledge, and it may be that there will be occasions when we need to dissent on points of detail—it would be remarkable if anyone expected us to do anything else.
But, that said, the strategy is clear. The British people will expect their Government to take proper steps to secure their safety and render those who would
272
endanger it impotent. We offer our full support for that fight. If Britain and all like-minded countries act together it seems to me that in the long run it is likely that the world will become a safer place. That outcome, if we can bring it about, would be the last result that those who perpetrated that dreadful act on 11th September expected. It would be supremely worth achieving.
9.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, I start by thanking all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I nearly always agree with what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, says but when he said that all we had had were two short debates I had to disagree with regard to today's debate. If the noble Lord considers that this is a short debate, I should hate to think what he considers a long one. However, more seriously, as I say, I thank those who took part in the debate. I wish to make a couple of preliminary points in that regard.
First, on behalf of the House, I wish the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, well. He made it to the House, which was bravery in itself. We hope that he will be back in his place soon. I should not let the moment pass without congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, on his first appearance on the Front Bench opposite in a new guise. His speech was interesting and full of good points that we took on board. I congratulate him on his new post.
I should also thank and congratulate the four maiden speakers tonight. All four of them, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, and the noble Lords, Lord Campbell-Savours, Lord Temple-Morris and Lord Ouseley, spoke with huge experience and expertise. I tried to add up the number of years that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, and the noble Lords, Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Temple-Morris, had spent in another place. I could not calculate the total for the three of them, but it must be close to 100 years. All three have tremendous experience of the other place and of government. Their remarks were challenging and of great value. We look forward to hearing all three of them speak again. The noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, does not have previous experience of Parliament but he has enormous experience in the race relations and other fields where he has performed admirably for many years. We look forward to him playing an important part in our debates.
In order that noble Lords may not be too scared I should say that I do not intend for a moment to attempt to answer all or even most of the questions that were put. I do not intend to answer them orally. Many of the questions that were asked by, for example, the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, my noble friend Lord Turnberg and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, to mention just four, were important. It would be foolish to try to answer them at this time of night. I shall write to them in the normal way.

273
A little over three weeks ago we all witnessed the appalling act of terrorism where four civilian airliners became flying bombs in the hands of quite brutal and ruthless men. As we know, three of them crashed into their targets in New York and Washington but the fourth came down in a field in Pennsylvania after some of the hostages, with true heroism, fought back and almost certainly, as has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, who was not far away in Washington at the time, they saved the lives of many more innocent human beings and in doing so, of course, sacrificed their own lives. If that is not a good example of true heroism I do not know what is.
It was not just America's tragedy; it represented one of the worst losses of British lives since World War II. That, together with our strong historical and enduring friendship with the United States—our closest ally—means that we have an obligation to play a leading role in responding to these appalling acts. So we now share the resolve and determination both to ensure that such events should not be allowed to occur again and that those responsible for them should be brought to account. No one in this House is in any doubt that we are fully committed to those goals.
The lack of any immediate response by the United States should not be taken by this House or by the world to indicate that there is any lack of resolve. This is a complex crisis and we are confronting a dangerous and ruthless enemy, closely linked, as we have heard today, to organised crime, to illegal arms trafficking, to money laundering on a large scale and to the movement of illicit and lethal drugs. That does not lend itself to quick or simple solutions and it would be grossly irresponsible to suggest that such options exist. It would be equally irresponsible to suggest that a narrow military action would be appropriate.
A proportionate and measured response takes time. The House has already paid due tribute to the restrained, dignified and responsible way in which the American Administration and its people have acted since 11th September.
The attacks on America have brought home once again the degree of mutual dependency in today's world. The global community must now turn that unity to its advantage and as a force for good. That means that the machinery of terror must be destroyed and greater understanding must be fostered between nations and faiths. It means further working together to tackle injustice and poverty. In all those issues, our national self-interest is inextricably linked with the mutual interests of countries around the world. They are one and the same.
Our own response to the events of a few weeks ago is being taken forward on a number of interrelated fronts: diplomacy and intelligence, as well as economic and military assets, will all have a vital role to play. Earlier my noble friend Lady Symons spoke of our role in building international co-operation for the fight against terrorism in partnership with the United Nations, the European Union, NATO and many countries around the world. The House has been generous in its praise from all sides in regard to the
274
Prime Minister's leading role in forming this coalition. That is credit well given. The Prime Minister has been tireless in his efforts to build international support and to establish a broad international coalition.
One of the most striking developments over the past three weeks has been the way in which countries that have had their conflicts, wars both ancient and modern, have now come together to support joint action against this common evil. These include Arab leaders and those from other Muslim countries who understand that this is an argument with terrorism and not with Islam. The point is that these acts represent an appalling violation of the true values and humane ideals of Islam. It is a point which cannot be made strongly enough or often enough. I think that we were fortunate to hear in today's debate my noble friends Lord Ahmed and Lady Uddin make that point as strongly as it is possible to do.
Here at home, many people are deeply concerned about the prospect of terrorist attacks in the United Kingdom; in particular, the spectre of attacks involving weapons of mass destruction, especially chemical or biological agents, looms large. Of course we must always take such threats extremely seriously. Any responsible government would do so. But I wish to emphasise to the House once again that there is no evidence of a specific threat against this country. It is important that people should remain vigilant, just as they did when responding to the threat from Irish terrorism. However, there is no reason why people should not carry on their daily business as normal. Indeed, there is every reason why they should.
The possibility of such attacks has existed for many years. For more than a decade we know, for example, that the Iraqi regime was prepared to use chemical weapons against its own citizens. Saddam Hussein's immediate response to the events of llth September did no more than remind us once again of his total disregard for all human life other than his own. The House will recall—it has been referred to already—that the ruthless and indiscriminate nature of mass terrorism was demonstrated when saris gas was released in the Tokyo metro six years ago in March 1995.
I can tell the House that cross-government contingency plans are in place to deal with these threats. I shall not comment on the details of our plans, but they are wide-ranging and are exercised regularly. The police, fire brigade and ambulance services stand in the front line of the fight against terrorism, just as they did so bravely in New York. The health service would be responsible for managing the results of any attack. Local government would have an important role in marshalling resources. All the agencies would work together to ensure that we are as ready as we can be to face any threats.
Industry, too, has an important part to play. We should not overlook the prompt action taken by the airline industry to enhance the security of aircraft and passengers. They are not alone in their response. Increasingly the greater awareness of the threat of terrorism produced by these events is turning not to

275
fear but to action to ensure that vital infrastructure and services are protected. The Government's review of airport security is wide-ranging and is being conducted in full consultation with the United States authorities.
Noble Lords asked questions about the aviation industry. In the light of the severe repercussions for the global aviation industry, governments may well be asked to provide financial or other assistance to help airlines to cope with the crisis. We are monitoring that situation closely to ensure that any assistance offered does not place UK airlines at a competitive disadvantage.
Just as important is the determination of every citizen not to be intimidated by the ruthless acts of the terrorist. As has been said in this debate, the greatest victory that we could give to our enemies would be to allow our way of life to be undermined by terrorism. This House has shown today that it believes that we are and will remain a democratic, free and diverse country, not divided by race or creed.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford made three specific suggestions in relation to his proud city. The right reverend Prelate's personal commitment and work for inter-faith understanding is a matter of public record and admiration. Of course, the Government will consider his imaginative suggestions sympathetically. I or my noble friend Lady Symons will write to him soon.
When the Cold War ended 12 years or so ago, we recognised what that represented. It was a revolution in the nature of international affairs. We no longer face that immediate threat of world war and the possibility of massive nuclear destruction. We knew that the future threats to international stability were likely to come from ethnic and religious conflicts, population and environmental pressures, competition for scarce resources, drugs, crime and, of course, terrorism.
Here in this country we accepted that the world had changed and that we needed to change as well. That assumption formed the basis of this Government's Strategic Defence Review, designed to ensure that our Armed Forces were restructured and re-equipped to operate and succeed in this quite new and challenging environment. We believe that events thus far have shown that we were right. The past decade has witnessed terrible ethnic conflicts, particularly in the Balkans. We have seen vicious internal conflict in Sierra Leone, for example, driven by competition to control the diamond fields, and in East Timor.
The process of implementing the defence review is still under way. We shall, of course, scrutinise recent events very closely to see whether lessons are to be learnt there. However, since we are already seeing the fruits from the Strategic Defence Review, we do not at present envisage the need for a further major defence review.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, properly asked about the purpose and extent of any defence review. The best way in which I can answer him is to refer to the comments of my right honourable friend the Secretary
276
of State for Defence, who said on Tuesday that we should be looking again at how we organise our defence. He said that this will not be a new strategic defence review but an opportunity if necessary to rebalance our existing efforts. He also said that we must have the right concepts, the right forces and the right capabilities to meet the additional challenges that we face from international terrorism conducted on this scale.
Some 2,000 British troops are, as we speak, returning from Macedonia, where, as part of Task Force Harvest, they have successfully completed their difficult mission to collect weapons from the National Liberation Army. Of course we wait for the final completion of the ongoing constitutional process in the Macedonian Parliament, but already that country looks to be more stable and peaceful than it did earlier this summer. That is a great credit to our British troops. Again, the Government were grateful for the support that we received from the Opposition parties for that expedition.
We believe that acting in this manner, sometimes in concert with our allies and sometimes by our own independent efforts, has materially added to the stability and prosperity of the international community. It is that sense of common values, common goals, and common action that the terrorists are seeking to challenge and destroy. We are now faced with a new and dangerous situation. While we accept that our response must be made up from a diverse range of efforts acting together, there is a high likelihood of it involving military action by UK Armed Forces acting in concert with our allies and our American friends.
As the Prime Minister has emphasised, any such action will be proportionate. It will be carefully targeted at the military infrastructure of bin Laden's terrorists and at the military hardware, funding and support of the Taliban regime that harbours and—this expression will be familiar to lawyers—aids and abets them. The Prime Minister made it clear that we will do what we humanly can to avoid civilian casualties and that the humanitarian response must be every bit as well planned and as thorough as the military response.
Of course we understand the need to ensure that our efforts against terrorism are correctly targeted. However, there is compelling and incontrovertible evidence of the involvement of Osama bin Laden. The trail to bin Laden leads unambiguously back to Afghanistan and the Taliban regime. Two UN Security Council resolutions require the Taliban to hand over bin Laden. There can be no negotiation about that. The first and most immediate priority is to bring him and his associates to account. We call, even at this late hour, on the Taliban to comply with the will of the UN and the whole international community. Otherwise, the regime must be prepared to face the consequences.
Those responsible for the acts of 11th September are not people who can be reasoned with. They are cold-blooded fanatics who despise dialogue and democratic procedures as signs of weakness and decay. I take this

277
opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, in particular, for his illuminating speech. He has deep experience of the evil of terrorism. Those people have proved beyond all doubt that human life means precisely nothing to them. Lives—even their own—are expendable and they are willing to use innocent people as bombs. That is why we must accept the need to act with absolute firmness and not fall prey to the delusion that the threat can simply be talked away.
As noble Lords know very well—it is often said in this House—the United Kingdom is privileged to have the finest Armed Forces in the world. It so happens—noble Lords also know this—that we have some 20,000 members of our Armed Forces already in the Gulf region as part of exercise Saif Sareea 2, which is our long-planned joint exercise with Oman. That effort includes the "Illustrious" carrier group, 3 Commando Brigade, five squadrons of Challenger II tanks, some 50 fast jet aircraft and many other force elements. They are demonstrating our support for our friends in the Gulf as well as honing their operational skills. However, they are also available for other contingencies, should they be required.
The Taliban will be alive to the real potential of that powerful force. Its mere presence—and that of the build-up of a powerful US force in the Gulf region—will have sent a clear message to the Taliban about our capabilities. There are signs that the firm international response is already having an effect. Dissent, disputes and disharmony are surfacing within the regime as the pressure of international isolation bears down.
However, it is worth repeating—as has been said in this debate—that the people of Afghanistan are of course not our enemy. They, too, are the victims of the Taliban. Years of war, famine and neglect have reduced them to the state of desperation so well described by noble Lords today. We must also mobilise against that evil. That is why, in addition to building the international coalition against terrorism, we are leading international action to address the growing humanitarian crisis faced by the Afghan people. We have provided £36 million extra in support since 11th September on top of the £35 million provided since 1997. As the House knows, the first shipment of 400 tents arrived in Iran yesterday and more are on their way.
Moreover, the belief that terrorism can be defeated only by armed force is as wrong as the belief that it can be defeated without ever using military force. Terrorists indulge in criminal acts and we must have the legal framework in place to deal with them and their crimes. Earlier this week, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out the new measures that we intend to take to ensure that no bank
278
or financial institution, national or international, will be able to offer a hiding place for terrorist money without fear of prosecution.
Much discussion has taken place today about measures that may be taken by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to deal with terrorism. I take this opportunity to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, for his contribution today. It was a masterful speech setting out his experience over many years of reporting and assisting the Government to get the Terrorism Act 2000 about right. His compliment to the Act is of great importance to us; we think that we got it right and we want to ensure that it is actually working to deal with the present threat.
Many noble Lords are concerned that we may not have been tough enough on those who, it could be argued, abuse our hospitality. They may well be right, and we are at present carefully considering what steps may be appropriate, but we will always bear in mind the fundamental liberties that are so important to the British people. The biggest and most fundamental of all freedoms is the freedom to live in peace and without fear—something that may, perhaps, have been a little forgotten during the course of the past 20 or 25 years.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, properly asked some questions about the legislation; I shall briefly try to answer him. Will the legislation be new or amending? Some will involve amendments; some will be new. When will it appear? At present, we believe in early November, but that is yet to be finalised. He will not be surprised to hear that my answer to his third question about sunset clauses is that no decisions have yet been reached.
I shall not go into any more detail about that legislation. It will come before the House in the normal way and, no doubt, the House will consider it with its usual critical faculties fully at work. But these are special times and it is important that the House bears that in mind when considering these matters.
The evil of international terrorism urgently needs to be confronted and defeated. If there was any doubt of that prior to 11th September, there cannot be any now. We need to confront it together because it potentially threatens us all. As has been said, it will not be quick and it will not be easy. But this country is determined to play a leading role in that response. Let me assure the House that the Government are working endlessly and hard both nationally and internationally to that end. In doing so, we will take the necessary action to protect our people and our interests both at home and abroad.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past ten o'clock.

  Crime and Disorder Act: Fire Authorities
  Crime and Disorder Act: Fire Authorities
  Immigration Policy: Roma
  Immigration Policy: Roma
  Criminal Justice System Cabinet Committee
  Criminal Justice System Cabinet Committee
  Blundeston Prison and Hollesley Bay YOI: Possible Evacuation
  Blundeston Prison and Hollesley Bay YOI: Possible Evacuation
  GDP: Effect of Foot and Mouth Disease
  GDP: Effect of Foot and Mouth Disease
  Euro Membership and the UK Economy
  Euro Membership and the UK Economy
  Working Families' Tax Credit: Service Families
  Working Families' Tax Credit: Service Families
  Autism and Thiomersal in Vaccines
  Autism and Thiomersal in Vaccines
  Air Pollution Research
  Air Pollution Research
  State Registered Chiropodists
  State Registered Chiropodists
  Disabled People: Equality of Opportunity
  Disabled People: Equality of Opportunity
  Flag Flying: English and Scottish Heritage Buildings
  Flag Flying: English and Scottish Heritage Buildings
  Sex Equality
  Sex Equality
  Age, Religion and Sexual Orientation Equality: Ministerial Responsibilities
  Age, Religion and Sexual Orientation Equality: Ministerial Responsibilities