| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hogg: If someone decided to break into a mink farm in order to release the mink from their cages, or to break into a research station and destroy the animals cages, that would clearly be an act of serious violence. It would be a criminal act--and one that I would deplore. But why should such organisations be classified as "terrorist" under clause 1?
Mr. Straw: Examples of the type given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman are easy to invent, but, in practice--
Mr. Hogg: Violence to property.
Mr. Straw: In practice, we are talking about the threat of serious violence. Of course, there is a fine dividing line.
Mr. Straw: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would allow me to respond--
Madam Speaker: Order. As the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has asked a question, he might listen to the answer.
Mr. Hogg: I apologise, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Straw: There are people who claim to be in favour of so-called animal liberation who have engaged in actions that not only caused risks but resulted in the most serious violence to individuals, and have put people under threat of their lives. Such circumstances may well fall within the ambit of clause 1. Having said that, I believe that we must have some confidence in the law enforcement agencies and the courts. If we look back at the past 25 years, we can see that the powers have been used proportionately in the face of an horrific threat from terrorism in Ireland and a considerable threat from international terrorism. Moreover, as I have explained, we are raising the threshold of the definition in the Bill; we are adding to the powers in only one respect; and we are removing many powers to which hon. Members on both sides of the House have taken exception in the past.
The Bill does not focus on demonstrations, which are a normal activity in a democracy. I wholly defend people's right to go in for peaceful protest--indeed, many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have been involved in such peaceful protests.
Mr. Colin Pickthall (West Lancashire):
We still are.
Mr. Straw:
My Parliamentary Private Secretary says that we still are. Many of us have been involved in peaceful protests and I defend the right of peaceful protest. We are not talking about demonstrations that get out of hand.
Mr. Kevin McNamara (Hull, North)
rose--
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North):
rose--
Mr. Straw:
I will give way to both my hon. Friends in a minute.
Instead, the Bill focuses on the opposite end of the spectrum. It is about deterring, preventing and, where necessary, investigating heinous crime--heinous because terrorism seeks to destroy not only lives, but the foundation of our society. The Bill is therefore about protecting, not threatening, fundamental rights. In the words of the Home Office's principal purpose, it is about establishing a
Mr. Straw:
I understand the point that my hon. Friend raises. We have to legislate with words because that is all we have, but we also have to trust and do more than trust--we must build safeguards into our framework of law to ensure that arrangements such as those in the Bill, which I accept at the outset go beyond the normal criminal law, are used responsibly and proportionately.
I know that my hon. Friend has changed his mind, but I remind him that he supported the original Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill in ringing tones when it came before the House on 28 November 1974. He fully supported his then right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins, saying that the introduction of the Bill was
There has been some almost wilful misunderstanding of the Bill by some who have taken exception to it in extravagant language. Clause 1 does not create an offence of terrorism. It sets out the extremely specific circumstances in which the use of police powers can be triggered, or in which the use of other powers can be triggered--also in very controlled circumstances. In each case, the powers--including the power of proscription--are subject to proper judicial adjudication.
Mr. McNamara:
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for two reasons. First, he reminded me of my stupidity in believing that, when the 1974 PTA was passed, it would be in force for only six months. However, I was right at the time. Secondly, I want to remind my right hon. Friend that he, too, voted against the Prevention of Terrorism Acts. He also fought an election against going into the
The issue now is whether the circumstances that resulted in the passing of the Act in 1974--when to push us through the Lobby to vote in favour, promises were made and threats were whispered in the Corridors about the reintroduction of capital punishment if the legislation was not passed--apply at this time.
Mr. Straw:
I understand something about conversions. I know that my hon. Friend has changed his mind on this subject. I was not in the House at that time, but my support for the principle of anti-terrorist legislation has perhaps been, since the 1980s, rather more consistent than his.
Mr. McNamara:
Since the 1980s?
Mr. Straw:
My hon. Friend would get a surprise if he looked at my voting record. As for the Common Market, he is right. Not only did I vote against our continued membership of the Common Market, I campaigned against it as an active member of the "No" campaign. However, you would rule me out of order, Madam Speaker, if I went too far on that.
I regard my hon. Friend as the epitome of rationality. I say to him that although he came to a different view in 1974, he did so with the same rational brain that all of us have come to know and love so much, and it would therefore have been possible for him to encompass a different judgment then. To offer him comfort, I tell him that the threshold that we are putting in the Bill for good reasons--circumstances have changed--is higher than existed then.
On the overall circumstances, I do not believe that it is possible to consider the continued potential for Irish terrorism from organisations and individuals who are not signed up to the peace agreement; the threat of international terrorism, which continues; or the potential threat of some domestic terrorism, and to say that there is no threat of terrorism. Notwithstanding that, it may be possible to assert that such threats should be dealt with within the existing criminal law and procedure--and we are principally talking about procedure rather than criminal law. Although I appreciate that point of view, I come to a different opinion. I draw particular attention to the careful analysis in Lord Lloyd's report, which in turn drew on the opinion, which I have already cited, of well-known academics who have studied the issue with considerable care.
Mr. Corbyn:
In the intervention made by the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham--
Mr. Hogg:
I am the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham.
Mr. Corbyn:
I beg his pardon--the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham(Mr. Hogg). That is near to Grantham; we all know where it is.
"safe, just and tolerant society".
Mr. McNamara:
My right hon. Friend has now introduced a new word--heinous. Is that to be the equivalent of serious? What criteria will he suggest police forces should adopt in bringing an action under clause 1? What is serious? What is heinous? Is it something that involves a real threat to life? Is it something deliberate or accidental? Will a cash value also be placed on the action, depending on the extent of the damage to property, or will it be simply a question of inconvenience? Those are very real problems, about which many people are worried, and "serious" is a very wide definition in these various matters.
"the least he could do."
He also said that it would be
"sad, however, if we were to worry now too much about the curtailment of liberties and later to have upon our consciences the deaths of our fellow citizens."--[Official Report, 28 November 1974; Vol. 882, c. 700.]
I fully understand that my hon. Friend has changed his mind since then, but I draw his attention to the fact that the Bill that he supported at that stage had a lower threshold for the triggering of the powers than does the Bill before us.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |