| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.59 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): I am concerned about one thing: misdirected vengeance. For example, nearly two years ago, with the Home Secretary's agreement, I went to Scotland Yard to see Assistant Commissioner David Veness about the brutal murder of Woman Police Constable Yvonne Fletcher. That case has repeatedly been given as a reason for our maintaining support for rather brutal sanctions against Libya. If there were no doubt whatever about that case, that position would at least be understandable, but Scotland Yard continues to press for a decision--I am told that one is just around the corner--on an investigation that I do not doubt they take extremely seriously.
David Veness said to me, "We have about half a dozen cases that, above all, we really want to solve. Yvonne Fletcher was one of our own. You can take it, Mr. Dalyell, that we really want to solve that case." I do not doubt that Scotland Yard is working extremely hard on it. Will the Home Secretary therefore tell the House when that case is likely to be concluded? If there is a degree of uncertainty about that case, how in heaven's name can it be a basis for international policy?
Reference was made earlier to the Al Shifa factory. I have been to see R. J. P. Williams, who has been a fellow of Wadham college at Oxford for some 40 years and is professor of inorganic chemistry at that university, a Royal Society professor and the greatest European expert on EMTA, or O ethyl methyl phosphonoic acid. In long letters which make up part of a huge correspondence with the Prime Minister, Professor Williams says that he is now certain that the Al Shifa factory had nothing whatever to do with the VX precursors that apparently caused all the trouble. He said also that anyone would have to be out of their mind to make VX precursors in a factory that did not even have airtight doors in a built-up area in a capital city. No one would do that.
There comes a time when we say that the vengeance that has been wreaked is ill-directed and wrong. This is not the occasion, in such a short debate, to take up time discussing Iraq, but I plead with a senior member of the Cabinet to imagine what it must be like for traumatised kids and old people to face the threat of bombing night after night. I say gently to the Home Secretary that those of us who are of a generation that has done national service or have experience of Northern Ireland--a subject on which I speak with great humility--know what horror is being unleashed. Is there a moral justification for that? What justifies it?
Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke):
In previous debates on our annual review of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, hon. Members may sometimes have felt a sense of deja vu as seasoned participants recited their well-known and well-rehearsed positions. This year, the debate is different. For the first time in our review of anti-terrorism legislation, we may consider aspects of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 and take into account the implications for the PTA of the Human Rights Act 1998. Also for the first time, we can take into account the Government's wider thinking on anti-terrorism legislation, as outlined in the Home Office consultation paper. Each of those factors is novel to this debate.
As Mr. Rowe makes clear in his report, the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 will affect the implementation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, not least where the PTA gives effect to the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998. Mr. Rowe's report does not make entirely encouraging reading. It opens the Government to the accusation that what they are trying to do with one Act, the renewal of the PTA, they undermine with another, the Human Rights Act 1998.
Under the Human Rights Act, the courts will be required to interpret the PTA to uphold the European convention on human rights. The fact that they will be required to take into account any relevant judgment of the European Court of Human Rights and the fact that case law of the European Court will be part of the jurisprudence of the United Kingdom may, as Mr. Rowe acknowledges, affect the implementation of the PTA--some parts more than others. From now on, to a far greater extent, the important matter will be how the powers of the PTA have been exercised in an individual case.
The Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act--I make this point in relation to what has been said earlier in this debate--has not had any effect on the pursuit of the Omagh bombers.
Section 2A of the PTA, which was introduced under the terrorism and conspiracy Act, provides that on a charge of membership of a proscribed organisation, a police officer may give evidence that in his opinion the defendant belongs to a specified organisation. There is legitimate cause for concern here. Paragraph 58 of Mr. Rowe's report states:
Mr. Hunter:
Yes, I do. My hon. Friend makes the point that I am trying to make more succinctly. If he bears with me, I will continue to develop it. Another section in Mr. Rowe's report substantiates his argument.
In paragraph 63, Mr. Rowe points out that because "PACE inference" is different from "PTA inference", there is a danger of confusion where several charges are brought against a defendant, and that could constitute unfairness, as defined by the European convention on human rights. Mr. Rowe also suggests, as no doubt my hon. Friend is aware, that in some circumstances the same can be said of sections 14 and 16A. To put it mildly, it is profoundly unsatisfactory that the Government have created what, at the very least, is a grey area, and may prove to be much worse. That and the fact that the powers of the new section 2A have not been used since they were enacted goes a considerable way towards justify the cynicism that some of us feel about the interaction of the PTA and the Human Rights Act 1998.
As for the order in the wider context of the Government's review of legislation against terrorism, I do not object in principle to the proposition that the PTA and the Emergency Provisions Act should be replaced with one piece of permanent legislation, provided some flexibility is retained to enable the Government to respond to exceptionally serious or unforeseen circumstances.
With regard to the consultation paper and the order, to be ultra-selective, first, on balance, I believe that the Government are probably right to think in terms of introducing a judicial element into the extension of detention--section 14 of the Act. I changed my thinking on that issue towards the end of the previous Parliament. However, I still maintain that the case for judicial involvement is not so overwhelming as some of its advocates maintain. There are dangers and there are difficulties, not least the risk of compromising the judiciary by widening its role from being only and strictly judicial, and involving it in the process of prosecution.
Secondly, I hope that the Government will take very serious note indeed of Mr. Rowe's emphasis on the key role of port and border controls in detecting and deterring terrorism. He especially stresses the importance of adequate manpower. He reports in paragraph 114 that
In my judgment, the powers to intern and to exclude, when used on a basis of sound intelligence, can be an effective means of severing the chain of command and communication without which terrorists cannot commit acts of terror. I am convinced that both powers should be available for use, and I remain convinced that the Government's ability to deter and detect terrorism is weakened by abandoning them.
"In my view there may, in the use and application of this section, be a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, where the police officer speaks of what another person . . . told him, or what sensitive information tells him."
On inference from silence, Mr. Rowe comments in paragraph 62 in respect of the Human Rights Act:
"Whether there will be a breach of the European Convention will depend upon the circumstances of the particular case."
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield):
Does my hon. Friend agree that the matter goes beyond simply a possible breach of the European convention? We were certainly led to believe in debates on incorporating the convention that it was the bottom line. Does he therefore agree that simply as a departure from normal legal practice in this country, the two provisions to which he has referred ought to give cause for considerable concern?
"there is as much need as ever for the presence of port officers, from the point of view of both terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland, and terrorism in the international field."
Thirdly, with regard to the consultation paper and this order, there remain two areas where, without apology, I continue to quarrel with the Government. I shall not repeat the arguments in detail--they are well rehearsed--but merely refer to them. It remains my belief that the Government are making a monumental error in dispensing with the power to intern and the power to exclude. I note with interest, however, that the Government are retaining the power to exclude from the United Kingdom to the Republic of Ireland; I approve of that.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |