| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Maginnis indicated dissent.
Ms Mowlam: Okay, I will give up on that one.
The rule of law is paramount, and we have given a clear message--even though some hon. Members have questioned it--to terrorists on both sides that the Opposition will give no succour to anyone who breaches it. I should like to acknowledge the work of the security forces, because they have responded well and adapted to a new role. Their courage and determination to prevent criminal activity and to prosecute those involved continue
unabated. I wish to commend in particular the recent efforts of the new drug unit in Belfast, which has been increased in size to try to respond to increasing drug trafficking in Northern Ireland.
The Opposition would have liked to have a common purpose with the Government on anti-terrorist legislation. If the Government had acted with alacrity in conducting a review, that could have been possible this afternoon. It is a matter of regret that it is not possible. We have tabled a reasoned amendment, which we hope will be accepted. In Committee, we will continue to try to make the desired changes to the Bill.
Mr. Alex Carlile :
If the hon. Lady's view is accepted, there will be no Committee.
Ms Mowlam:
There will be a Committee stage between Second and Third Reading. In answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's barracking, I should like to make it clear that we will vote for our reasoned amendment. I had hoped that we would have had from the Secretary of State this afternoon some statement which would have permitted us to abstain on the substantive motion.
Some hon. Members worry that the powers in section 69 of the Act, which is now clause 60 of the Bill, will be needed if things deteriorate in the months ahead. We had hoped, as the Secretary of State said last June, that those powers could be put in reserve. That would have been some movement in relation to the past 16 months. We would have liked greater movement not only in relation to section 69, but in relation to the argument we have put this afternoon--that, if the Government had not acted so tardily, we would not have needed this debate.
Little has been proposed by the Secretary of State today. I make it clear that we are not asking for the powers to be removed from the Bill completely, but for them to be put into reserve. That could have been done with many of the powers, and it would have given an important signal to the people of Northern Ireland about the efforts being made to keep the peace process moving. It would also have given a clear signal to the terrorists that the powers were not being taken out of the Bill completely and that they could be used if the situation deteriorated.
We will vote twice against the legislation today, as we did in 1991. It is important to be consistent. In 1991, because of our objections to powers such as the power of internment, we voted against. It would be ironic if we were to change our position between 1991, when the troubles were rife, and now, after 16 months of ceasefire--although there is a lot of intimidation and violence on the streets.
In direct answer to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, we do not want to have no anti-terrorist legislation on the statute book. We will fight hard in Committee to get some of the changes we want, but we will not vote against the Bill on Third Reading. Our position is logical and consistent. It is important that we do not leave the people of Northern Ireland without any emergency legislation.
My principal desire this afternoon has been to ensure that it will soon be possible not to have the emergency legislation, which we have had for 74 years. The peace process is at yet another crucial stage, as the Secretary of State said this afternoon. It might be at its most sensitive
stage. We wish Senator Mitchell and his colleagues well in their work, and we look forward to their report. Working with the commission's report will be the best way forward.
Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke):
It is a matter of great regret that the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) adopts the position towards the Bill that she has just announced. I strongly support the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) that the Labour party's position will send out entirely the wrong signals. It would have been far better if the House had been able to unite behind the Bill at this stage and not merely on Third Reading.
Some of the hon. Members who have been fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in previous debates on the emergency provisions and who have become seasoned participants may agree that, on occasion, our deliberations have been characterised by some repetition. Although that does not detract from the validity of the arguments, over the years the salient features have been well rehearsed.
Over the years, we have heard strong arguments from Opposition Members against the emergency provisions. They have argued that the emergency provisions abuse civil liberties, and are therefore inherently unjust. They have argued at times that, domestically, the provisions erode the integrity of the state and have a corrupting influence and that, overseas, they lower the standing of the United Kingdom in the eyes of other countries. We have heard the argument that it would be far better to counter terrorism through ordinary law and the ordinary criminal justice system. We have also heard it suggested that emergency provisions are counter-productive in so far as they provoke animosity and disaffection, and can arguably promote the terrorists' cause. All those arguments have been taken seriously, and they have been debated many times. The simple truth is that, in the judgment of Conservative Members, those arguments have failed to convince.
At best, the Opposition's arguments are over-simplistic; at worst, they are irresponsible. Conservatives have consistently maintained, first, that those who oppose the emergency provisions have failed to appreciate that the greatest threat to civil liberties comes from terrorism and not from emergency powers. Secondly, we have argued that those who have opposed the emergency provisions have failed to take account of the universal experience of democratic countries--that, when a democracy is challenged internally by those who do not share democratic values, additional powers are needed.
We believe that those who oppose the emergency provisions, which are still in place, have failed to perceive that they are not wholly draconian. They seek to maintain a balance, safeguarding the interests of the individual and
producing effective methods of counter-terrorism. Above all, we believe that those who oppose the emergency provisions have failed to pay sufficient heed to those in the front line of the fight against terrorism. Over the years, the consistent message from the Royal Ulster Constabulary and from the Army has been that the powers are needed. The Government have therefore been right to maintain emergency provisions and they are right to look to do so again in future.
We now hear a second argument--a different argument--against the emergency provisions. We began to hear it when we debated the prevention of terrorism Act last March. We heard it a little more clearly when we debated the emergency provisions in June, and we are hearing it much more clearly today. I am sure that I was not the only Member of Parliament to receive a letter from the Committee on the Administration of Justice, which is based in Belfast. I quote selectively. The letter says:
The same argument comes in the paper "Northern Ireland: An Emergency Ended?", which is produced by the international human rights working party of the Law Society of England and Wales. On page 42, it is argued that
The working party refers to the United Nations Human Rights Committee and its recommendation
The body of lawyers writes:
I contend that the Government are entirely right to reject those arguments. With the demise of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 imminent, the Government are right to reinstate emergency provisions, duly amended. I do not believe that there is any need to rehearse the argument or the evidence in great detail. The facts speak for themselves. In Northern Ireland, the terrorists continue to terrorise, and the murderers continue to murder. It is reasonable to believe that a significant number of terrorists keep open the possibility of returning to full-scale violence. It would therefore be not merely irresponsible but insane of the Government not to proceed with this measure; hence there is the strongest possible support on the Conservative Benches for the Bill.
More specifically, I wish to refer briefly to three aspects of the debate. First, I welcome the announcement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State about the establishment of the review of counter-terrorist legislation. That, of course, was anticipated last June and we have already had a taste that, from some circles, there will be criticism that that has been late in coming and that the commission is long overdue. I reject that argument. I think that the Secretary of State's judgment has been right. It was all a question of timing. There had to be the right developments to enable the climate to exist for that work to be done effectively. Nevertheless, one looks forward to the findings of that review.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Redcar made much of the internment theme. I believe that the Opposition are wrong to condemn the retention of the detention powers of internment. I have consistently argued that there can be circumstances in which the reintroduction of internment is the lesser of evils. At a time of heightened terrorist activity, or anticipated heightened terrorist activity, internment can disrupt the command and communication structures of terrorists, prevent them from operating as they had planned and save lives. In such circumstances, it would be wholly wrong to eliminate the possibility of internment being reintroduced.
The suggestion that there should be a full-scale debate in Parliament, and perhaps a vote taken, prior to the reintroduction of internment is wholly counter-productive because it would destroy the effectiveness of the practice. The Government are right to retain in the present Bill the potential for the reintroduction of internment.
I hope that it will never be the case, but were it to be necessary for internment to return on a short-term basis, we would find it more acceptable than was the case in the 1970s. The anticipation of permanent peace and the taste of relative peace in Northern Ireland that is now being experienced will have the effect of ensuring that anyone who decided to return to full-scale violence would be unlikely to enjoy the level of community support that has hitherto existed.
Thirdly, on the introduction of electronic recordings in the holding centres, I give a cautious welcome to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said. The clamour for electronic recordings has increased over the years. There has always been, and there remains, the strong argument that recording would deter co-operation, and that fear of retribution--of what terrorist organisations might do if they discovered how much or what information had been given--would silence detainees. That remains a valid argument, and the Government have been right to listen to it.
The introduction of silent video recordings is an acceptable way forward. It would deal with the real fear, or accusations, that violent physical assault can or does take place from time to time. The videos would demonstrate whether that was the case. The fact that they were silent would remove the fear that terrorist organisations might learn what had been said.
I applaud the decision to renew the emergency provisions. I believe that it was right, and I anticipate that my right hon. and hon. Friends will agree. Nevertheless, one looks forward to the time when such provisions will no longer be necessary. I therefore welcome the fact that the Government seek to reflect in the Bill the changing circumstances in Northern Ireland and the progress that has been made towards achieving permanent peace. That is evident from the reduction of the lifespan of the Act to two years; the transfer of the powers to deal with the confiscation of proceeds of terrorist-related activities to the ordinary criminal law; making it possible for the provisions to apply only to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and not to the Army as well; and establishing a major independent review of counter-terrorist legislation.
"there is no emergency in Northern Ireland and therefore there should be no emergency law. In our view emergency legislation is both unnecessary and counterproductive."
"the emergency legislation is no longer appropriate".
"'that further concrete steps be taken so as . . . to dismantle the apparatus of laws infringing civil liberties'".
"We agree. There is no compelling reason for delay. The emergency legislation should go as soon as possible."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |