| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord McNally: When the issue was discussed in the Commons, my party supported the Conservatives in a Division on the amendments. If the Conservatives choose to divide the Committee today, we shall not support them.
Lord McNally: What a wonderful exhibition. Let me bring the Conservatives up to date. We are dealing with one of the most serious Bills before Parliament. On Second Reading, I told the House how my party
would deal with it. I said that in Committee we would probe and listen not just to the Government, but to the array of expertise around the Committee. Having probed in Committee, we would come to conclusions about where we agreed with the Government and where we disagreed with them. We are not interested in cheap Thursday night defeats of the Government, to be spun as they would.
Lord Waddington: I do not quite understand the noble Lord's argument. Surely his party has come to a conclusion about the matter. Why is it necessary now to hear the arguments, which have already been rejected by his party leader?
Lord McNally: If the late Home Secretary, had listened more to arguments, he might have made a better Home Secretary.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: Shame! Apologise!
Lord McNally: I am not apologising.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: You should.
Lord McNally: Is that the way the Conservative Party wants to spend this afternoon—when we are remembering those whom we lost on 11th September? I do not believe that the Committee stage of this Bill is the time for taking one particular issue, dividing the Committee and trying to defeat the Government. We made it clear on Second Reading that we were going to listen—and we are listening.
The Earl of Onslow: There is something infinitely depressing about the noble Lord's remarks. Up to now, members of the Liberal Benches have been showing that they are both liberal and democratic.
Lord McNally: We do not need a lecture.
The Earl of Onslow: Oh yes you do! Suddenly, they have gone back into creep and soldier ant mode, which is so sad. We are dealing with something that is very serious. I am probably slightly more outside some of my colleagues in supporting many of the things said by the noble Lords, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, Lord Goodhart and Lord Thomas of Gresford. It is sad to see a great party—the party of Gladstone—go into creep mode. That is what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is doing.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I feel concern that this matter is being treated as a party issue when it is a national issue. There is little doubt that the IRA has been endeavouring to help Iraq learn how to make explosives and is in regular touch with ETA—the Basque terrorist movement that killed people only recently. Does not that suggest that the IRA is international and therefore should be covered by the Bill? It is as simple as that. Whether we vote now or at any other time may be a matter of tactics—I do not know. However, it is offensive to suggest that we
cannot debate the matter. I thought that the purpose of Committee stage was discussion. I hope that the Minister will regard this issue as relevant to the Bill and relevant now.
Lord McNally: That is exactly what I was suggesting. We should have a thorough discussion and hear what Ministers say. I find the wording at Clause 21(4)—where it states that international terrorism
- Xdoes not include terrorism concerned only with the affairs of a part of the United Kingdom"
I have heard discussions in corridors—perhaps the Minister will deal with this—when it has been suggested that this is a piece of Government appeasement to the IRA, which is why a number of noble Lords are in the Committee and excited today. I genuinely want to understand why the Bill makes a distinction between terrorism and international terrorism, to produce contradictions. Is that because the Bill deals with a section of terrorists not already covered by the anti-terrorist legislation that we passed less than a year ago? I am exploring and probing. If the Minister's replies are unsatisfactory, we are willing to have talks with Conservative Members—as we did in the other place.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Would the noble Lord find it acceptable, as this is not a political issue, if we were to discuss the matter without preconceptions, listen to the arguments and vote according to our conscience?
Lord Hylton: I am inclined to think that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has a good point because this group of amendments tends to strengthen the Bill rather than weaken it. If the Government do not accept the amendment, I hope that the mover will return to them at the next stage.
Lord McNally: If I may be allowed to conclude my remarks, then others can get in at this wonderful Committee stage. There seems to be either an anomaly or a contradiction that needs clarification. If the Minister has a satisfactory explanation, he can rely on our support at Report stage. If the anomaly or contradiction is sustained, we may support the Conservatives—as we did in the other place.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: One thing that I learnt during 18 years in the other place was that emergency
legislation is fraught with difficulty, which is my reason for supporting the amendment. The lines in question will weaken the Bill by the negative way in which they deal with the problem.Emergency legislation introduced by the Minister's party after the Birmingham bombing more than 25 years ago was subsequently opposed year after year by members of that same party when it was necessary annually to renew that legislation. We are treating the Bill as though it were a 15-month, six-month or even three-month measure for dealing with a short-term problem—yet the Government accept that defeating international terrorism is a long-term issue. Hence it is important that those parts of the Bill that are open to question are correctly and properly defined.
To suggest that international terrorism does not include—rather than defining what it does include— terrorism concerned only with the affairs of a part of the United Kingdom, is for most of us totally confusing. What part of the United Kingdom are we talking about? Is that meant to cover only Northern Ireland? Is it meant to refer only to the Provisional IRA?
For the past three years, the Government have been telling me—and I have been prepared to accept—that the Provisional IRA wants to move away from terrorism. It appears that in these two lines, the Government are displaying doubts that I have been doing my best to avoid during that period. If we believe that the Provisional IRA is moving incrementally towards normality and participating in the democratic process, why would we discourage them? Why would we display signs of weakness by including such an element in the Bill? I hope that that is not done out of sensitivity to either the Real IRA or to loyalist terrorists in Northern Ireland. If that is the case, it displays the sort of weakness that successive governments have been guilty of within the United Kingdom not for 10 years or 30 years, but since the Second World War. The events of 11th September were a catalyst not for something that has occurred in recent times, but rather for something that has crept up on us and to which we have turned a blind eye for many years.
So when the Government decide what is meant by,
- Xconcerned only with the affairs of a part of the United Kingdom",
I could go on talking about terrorist organisations and about what are their primary and secondary objectives—we have seen examples of that in recent times in Colombia. Albeit Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA claimed that to have been an
unauthorised activity, it had serious repercussions and our friends in the United States considered it such. But was it the primary objective of those members involved or was it their secondary objective, bringing us back to their primary objective in the United Kingdom? However, I conclude by saying that this important piece of legislation may have to sustain us not for six or 15 months, but for a considerable number of years. So let us not tie ourselves down to a totally negative qualification.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |