| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Straw: I accept a very great deal of what the hon. Gentleman says. As I said earlier, I think that it is crucial that we have the vision to build and strengthen institutions in all parts of the United Kingdom so that we can achieve
a greater level of confidence in the judicial system among all communities. That is important, and I believe that that was what Viscount Colville was talking about when he spoke about the dangers of stooping to the level of the terrorists.
Mr. Ken Maginnis (Fermanagh and South Tyrone): I also wish to pick up on the hon. Gentleman's point about stooping to the level of terrorists. Will he make it clear that when he talks about reform and repeal, he is not pandering to some of those on his Back Benches who support, endorse and encourage terrorists to the extent of bringing leading terrorists into this House? I refer, for example, to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who has never been slow to associate himself with the most outrageous members of the IRA. Will the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) confirm that reform and repeal must be about strengthening the law, not weakening it?
Mr. Straw: I defer to no one in my detestation of terrorism and my hostility to the IRA. I believe that that feeling is shared across the House. Picking up also on a point made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), I shall deal in a moment with how, after 23 years of so-called temporary provisions, we must promptly establish some permanent arrangements that balance the need to deal with terrorism and the need to protect civil liberties.
The second change to which we have long been committed concerns exclusion orders. The orders apply only to Irish terrorism and amount to internal exile, which, I understand, was last practised in this country under Henry VIII. The effect of the orders is bizarre. We are one kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but a terrorist who is regarded as so dangerous that he may not be allowed anywhere on the mainland is allowed to walk freely in Northern Ireland. In reverse, a suspect may be banned from Belfast, but not from Canary Wharf or Manchester.
Lord Lloyd's unequivocal view was that exclusion orders should be removed from the statute book. His review, of course, was based on the assumption of a lasting peace. However, as I have already pointed out, the most recent full-scale review, by Lord Colville, was based on no such assumption. Terrorism then was at a continuing high level. Despite that, Lord Colville said that exclusion orders were
Last year, I repeated our long-standing opposition to the use of the orders. Their utility is open to question in the security forces and outside. Whatever their use--it cannot be much--it is far outweighed by the breach of basic human rights that they entail. In government, we shall implement Lord Colville's recommendations and neither renew nor replace the orders. Existing orders will be revoked as soon as practicable. We shall then take an early legislative opportunity to remove the power from the statute book.
I have made frequent references to the review conducted by Lord Lloyd of Berwick into the future of anti-terrorist legislation. I should like to conclude with some general remarks about the review. First, the House should be indebted to Lord Lloyd and to Mr. Justice Kerr for the thoroughness and clarity of their report, as well as to Professor Paul Wilkinson of Aberdeen university for his encyclopedic second volume. We called for such a review for three years, on the assumption of a lasting peace, and we were delighted when at last it was established.
Some of Lord Lloyd's recommendations, such as those to narrow the scope and time of detentions, could come safely into force only when a lasting peace has been achieved. Others, such as his proposals on forfeiture in section 13 of the current PTA, could sensibly be brought into force before that, and would assist the fight against terrorism.
There are two wider points. The first concerns the interaction of the PTA and PACE. Lord Lloyd says that if PACE had been in force in 1974,
My second point leads on from that. At the end of his report, Lord Lloyd says that there should be public discussion of possible new powers and offences in advance of any future emergency that could prompt the introduction of further powers. Taking those two points together, we should not shelve the Lloyd report until a lasting peace has been achieved, but should begin a process of consultation on it to consider whether legislation could be drafted that would be robust and flexible enough to deal with a lasting peace in Northern Ireland and conditions in which a further emergency may arise. In government, I intend to start that process. Twenty-three renewals in 23 years have mocked the notion that the legislation is temporary.
The House is united in its determination to fight terrorism with every means consistent with a democratic nation founded on the rule of law. The provisions of anti-terrorist legislation are tough and, in many ways, unpalatable, but they are necessary to deter and defeat those who, in Lord Lloyd's words,
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Before I call anyone else to speak, I remind the House that the debate must end at 7 o'clock. It would therefore be prudent if speeches were shorter rather than longer.
Mr. Richard Needham (North Wiltshire):
I shall try to assist you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am encouraged in some way that three more hon. Members are present for this, my last speech in the House, than there were for my maiden speech 18 years ago. On the other hand, perhaps that is one of the reasons why I have decided to leave.
This is the first debate on security in Northern Ireland in which I have participated, although I was the longest-serving Northern Ireland Minister. Having listened to the debate, I do not think that I would have noticed much difference as year followed year if I had participated in the earlier ones.
Many hon. Members are more knowledgeable than I am about security matters. That may say something about me. It may also say something about the esoteric nature of security issues in Northern Ireland. Many security issues are clouded in secrecy. Secrecy is clearly important in dealing with terrorism, but I do not believe that all of it is always necessary.
All hon. Members have accepted that no security solution will, on its own, halt the violence that leads to misery in the Province. If there is to be an end to violence, and if a solution is to be found--I hope that I shall be allowed to draw a little on my experiences at the Northern Ireland Office, although they did not include responsibility for security--it will be because of economic and social improvement for all the people of Northern Ireland, because of a political strategy that can lead over time to a political agreement and because of tough, fair and responsible Army and police pressure against violence.
I do not believe that a social and economic solution or a political strategy will work without the adoption of a successful and sensitive security policy by both the Army and the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Social and economic, political and security matters are the three legs of the stool that I discussed with my colleagues and other Northern Ireland Members when I was a Northern Ireland Minister.
"the most draconian in the present Act".
He continued:
"I am not convinced that the ends justify the means . . . Exclusion orders should not be renewed or replaced."
He went on to say that removing exclusion orders from the statute book would be the correct decision
"both in terms of civil rights in the United Kingdom, and this country's reputation in that respect among the international community."
Although Mr. Rowe has supported the use of the orders, he acknowledged in his review last year that there were in the security forces
"a fair number of officers, of all ranks, who held the opposite view".
That is, they were against the orders. He went on to note that
"a known and experienced member of . . . terrorist organisations can be noticed at port and followed thereafter and kept under surveillance."
5 Mar 1997 : Column 935
One striking aspect of this year's Rowe review is the reduction in the use of the orders. In 1988, there were 122 exclusion orders against entry to the mainland. When Mr. Rowe wrote his report, there were just 24 in force. As we have heard from the Secretary of State this afternoon, there are now only 23. No order has been made since 1994, despite the cessation of the ceasefire. In Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State has abandoned their use. He revoked all the then current orders in 1995 and none has been made since.
"many of the procedural provisions contained in the PTA and the EPA might not have been necessary, or might have taken a different form."
He goes on to say that it is now possible to regard the PTA
"largely as a collection of modified PTA powers."
There will always be a need for special provisions to deal with terrorist offences, but they should, as far as possible, be part of a single arrest and detention code.
"seek to wage war on society"
and they have our support.
5.27 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |