| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the question. I hope I have indicated on behalf of
the Government that we are keen to ensure that there is a diversity of sources of supply of energy, and in that light, I think that the assurance can be given.Northern Ireland: Paramilitary Activity
11.23 a.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What further policies they have for reducing loyalist and republican paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, the Government are determined to root out paramilitary activity. The Organised Crime Task Force has been established to develop a multi-agency approach to organised crime, which has a significant paramilitary involvement. The Assets Recovery Agency seizes the assets of those paramilitaries who profit through crime. The Independent Monitoring Commission was established to monitor and report on paramilitary activity as part of its overall remit.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Lord President for that reply. What are the relative numbers of loyalist as opposed to republican outrages over the past year? What arrests and charges have been made subsequently by the Police Service of Northern Ireland over the same period of loyalists and republicans respectively? Given the likely discrepancy between these two figures, what further action in addition to the Organised Crime Task Force will the Government take to alleviate the situation?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, in 2003, eight murders were attributed to loyalist groups and two to republicans; 44 bombing incidents and 139 shootings to loyalists; 28 bombing incidents and 77 shootings to republicans. Of the shootings, 154 were so-called punishment attacks, with 99 attributed to loyalists and 55 to republicans. In addition, there were 148 paramilitary assaults, with 102 attributed to loyalists and 46 to republicans.
The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, also asked me about arrests and charges. On arrests, the information is not readily available. We are looking at this, and I am happy to write to noble Lords on the matter. On charges, in 2003, 121 persons were charged under the Terrorism Act 2000; 91 were loyalists and 29 were republicans. One as yet is unattributed. Of these, eight loyalists and one republican were charged with murder, and nine Loyalists and two republicans with attempted murder.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, will the Government formally recognise that these paramilitary activities are a cancer in society and are hindering, if not in fact completely stopping, political progress in Northern Ireland?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. The Government have made it absolutely clear that all paramilitary activity must
stop. It is clear from the event of a week last Friday that progress is not possible without the cessation of paramilitary activity.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, in her Answer my noble friend mentioned the Assets Recovery Agency, which I believe has been in operation for just over a year. Could she say anything about how successful that agency has been?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I think that the agency has been in existence now for some 18 months. Its success in stripping criminals of their ill-gotten gains has been very good indeed, and I congratulate the assistant director on his contribution in the fight against organised crime in Northern Ireland. It is currently dealing with 20 live investigations, with combined assets of around £8 million. In six of these cases, the agency has been successful in freezing or pursuing through taxation the value of almost £2.75 million, which includes freezing assets last week in excess of £500,000.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, is the Lord President aware that recently the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland told a meeting of the Policing Board that republican and loyalist terrorist groups were ignoring the demands of the British and Irish Governments for the cessation of paramilitary activity, and furthermore that the IRA has carried out more than 50 punishment beatings and shootings over the past year. Does she agree with me—I am sure that she does not—that so far the Government's efforts to contain this have been totally ineffective? What will she do, and what will the Government do, to start to put more realism into the fight against paramilitaries in Northern Ireland?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am aware of the comments that were made by the Chief Constable. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is right—I do not agree with him. As the noble Lord is aware, we have sought to look at these issues in the round. There has been some pressure on the Government, as the noble Lord knows, with respect to our assessment of the ceasefire arrangements of various paramilitary organisations. We do not make a judgment on the basis of individual incidents. Of course, the incident on 23 February does not sit well with the statements that were made by the IRA and Sinn Fein last October. We are well aware of that.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the prime difference between republican and loyalist terrorist groups is that republicans are protected by being behind the front of a recognised political party? Have the Government had any help from Mr Adams or Mr McGuinness by way of information about the organisation and activities of their private army?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will be well aware that the Government have been engaged in discussions with respect to the Belfast agreement and the review process with all the parties. We will continue to
do our best to bring cessation to paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland. We are well aware of the impact that this is having on our ability to make progress in Northern Ireland. We want to see a cessation and the people of Northern Ireland want lasting peace.Patents Bill [HL]
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to whom the Patents Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 5, Schedule 1, Clauses 6 to 14, Schedules 2 and 3, Clauses 15 and 16.—(Lord Triesman.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Anti-terrorism Review
11.30 a.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal) rose to move, That this House takes note of the work of the Privy Counsellor Review Committee on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act Review Report.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in taking note of the Motion, I ask the forgiveness of the House if I pray in aid the substance of the remarks my right honourable friend the Home Secretary used in another place on 25 February, where I know that there was a detailed and balanced examination of the measures contained in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. I am confident that we will undertake this process in a like manner, and I am aware that many noble Lords will wish to contribute to the debate.
First, I thank the right honourable and noble Lord, Lord Newton, and the members of the Privy Counsellor Review Committee for their dedicated work. We in the Government all appreciate the time, energy and commitment they have put into the task that both Houses gave them in the 2001 Act.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for his continuing work and his further annual report on Part 4 of the Act. This report will be of great assistance to us when we come to debate the renewal of the Part 4 powers next week. Finally, I thank the members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights for their timely report.
When we first introduced the ATCS Bill into this House, we deliberated at length and knew then that we had to face a new and unprecedented situation because of the threat posed to the very life of this nation. We
had to consider and debate difficult issues and balances between the need to protect the life of the nation and the need to preserve individual freedoms and rights—issues that go to the heart of our democracy.The issues that we face now are no less difficult, two years further on. We still face the same threats and the same dilemmas. The Privy Counsellors' review has been invaluable in terms of reflecting back to us all the issues that we raised then and the way in which we have implemented the powers contained within the ATCS legislation.
Neither the Government nor the committee have shied away from the fact that this is an extremely complex area which requires us to examine carefully how we interfere with some of the most fundamental rights of individuals in order that we might protect the wider communities in which we all live and work. In this case, the balance we must strike is to find a proportionate solution that best protects us from the threat that international terrorism poses to us and to our allies while interfering as little as possible with the rights of individuals.
I cannot promise that I will have all the answers today, but as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has been at pains to stress, he wishes to engage across the full spectrum of views so that we can fully consider how we ensure that we continue, both now and in the future, to have the most effective measures to fight terrorism and to deal with international terrorists.
A report of the stature of that produced by the committee demands the most careful and testing scrutiny. I can assure the House that the report has received this level of attention. The report has been one of the principal means by which the Government have been able to test the validity of their approach to counter terrorism. As such, it has been, quite frankly, invaluable.
The process of examination that we have undertaken, both in the form of statutory reviews and the ongoing internal process of ensuring that we have the necessary measures in place to protect us have demonstrated that there are no perfect solutions. Noble Lords would not expect, I think, a government to accept without reservation all the recommendations in the report, no matter how august the membership. That is the case in this report.
A significant section of the report and its recommendations dealt with the Part 4 detention powers. I will return to these in detail but it is important to be clear that while we appreciate the genuineness of the report's recommendation that these powers should be replaced as a matter of urgency, we believe that they are still necessary and proportionate and that none of the suggestions so far put forward would offer a complete or more workable alternative. While we understand the basis for some of the criticisms of these powers, they have worked and have made the United Kingdom a more hostile
environment for international terrorists. There are, however, other suggestions where we are in agreement with the committee, and I shall outline them shortly.As the final document to inform our debate today, I commend to the House the discussion paper that the Government published on 25 February, which includes our formal response to the Newton committee's report.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has produced a document which outlines the threat and the challenges that we face and, against this background, invites contributions on how to deal with international terrorists and the threat they pose. The challenge is how we deal with terrorists while protecting our democratic life and maintaining our commitment to the principles of democracy, good government, justice and the presumption of innocence—the very values that they seek to undermine. The discussion must occur in an environment that allows us to address the issues calmly, sensibly and in an informed manner, as we are doing today and have done in previous debates.
The Government welcome a number of the suggestions that the committee has put forward. We are considering further the idea of specialist terrorist cash seizure hearings. Consultation on this issue is being taken forward.
The Government have agreed with the committee's recommendation that Revenue departments should include statistics on the use of disclosure of information cases under Part 3 of the ATCS Act. We have already published information relating to the individual SIAC cases and Terrorism Act arrest figures on the Home Office website, as recommended by the committee.
The Government have agreed to revisit and renew the "Australia list" in Schedule 5 of the Act. The Australia list is a common control list of dangerous pathogens and toxins, and we are happy to amend in line with the latest scientific opinion. This is in line with the recommendation made by the Newton committee.
The Government have also acknowledged the points made by the committee in relation to Special Branch facilities at airports and ports and has been working closely with the relevant authorities for some time on how the situation is to be improved.
The Government agree with the committee that there is a need for data retention for the purposes of fighting crime and, in the light of the review committee's comments, are considering whether mainstream legislation is necessary in this area. The Government agree with the committee's recommendation on Part 13 that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, should keep Section 117 of the Act under careful review. Section 117, with which I am sure noble Lords are familiar, creates an offence of withholding information relating to a terrorist incident.
For many years, governments of various hues have been subject to intense criticism for the approach they have adopted in countering terrorism. One of the constant refrains is that whatever approach the Government adopt, it is not the right and proper one. The main recommendation of the report in relation to
Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act was that we should, as a matter of urgency, replace them. The report states:
- "New legislation should: deal with all terrorism, whatever its origin or the nationality of the suspected perpetrators; and not require a derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights".
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary, whose responsibility it is to reach those conclusions, believes that there is a continuing threat to the nation. His decision is based on information from a wide variety of sources and is kept constantly under review, but it is a real and continuing threat.
That threat has been most succinctly described by the director-general of the security services, Eliza Manningham-Buller, who recently said:
- "I see no prospect of a significant reduction in the threat posed to the UK and its interests from international terrorism over the next five years and, I fear, for a considerable number of years thereafter."
Having made reference to Eliza Manningham-Buller to illustrate my case, I echo the Home Secretary in formally recording our thanks to the Secret Intelligence Service, to the police and to all the other intelligence gathering agencies for their efforts in continuing to combat terrorism and to make the United Kingdom a safer environment. One of the principal difficulties they face is that the major part of the fight—prevention—is never seen or acknowledged. It is only in the aftermath of tragedy that we see whether a system, process or security measure has failed. My right honourable friend has the privilege and onerous duty of seeing the evidence of what they are doing and how they are doing it and of accepting the political responsibility for dealing with it.
I make no apologies for reiterating those comments or for reminding the House of examples of the atrocities that have been carried out by those whom we believe to pose a threat to the United Kingdom: in Bali, where 202 people were killed; in Casablanca, where 44 people were killed; in Riyadh, where 34 people were killed; in Jakarta, where 12 people were killed; and in Istanbul, where, at the end of last year, more than 50 people lost their lives, including our Consul-General and members of his staff.
Those are continuing threats that are taken seriously by all democratic nations, and rightly so, given the tremendous threat from Al'Qaeda, repeated by Osama bin Laden on numerous occasions. In February of last year, he said:
- "We also point out that whoever supported the United States, including the hypocrites of Iraq or the rulers of Arab states, those who approved their actions and followed them in this crusade war to fighting with them or providing bases and administrative support to them or any form of support, even by words, to kill Muslims in Iraq should know that they are apostates and outside the community of Muslims. It is permissible to spill their blood and take their property".
The Home Secretary asks that in our consideration of those issues, some of which are extremely important, we bear in mind the nature and level of the threat and what it means to all of us. However, like the Home Secretary, I freely admit to addressing noble Lords with some trepidation, because when this House passed the Act, we debated the substantial dangers involved in any democracy taking such powers as we did when we enabled the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, as a superior court of record chaired by a High Court judge, to deal with those cases in circumstances where we knew that information pertaining very directly to national security would have to be provided to a court. We therefore established facilities outside the normal criminal justice system.
Many Members of both Houses raised perfectly legitimate issues about the challenge that such a course of action posed to human rights and the presumption of innocence. I stress that that is not a criminal trial process. It is an immigration power designed to address the fact that the threat comes principally, but not exclusively, from foreign nationals whom we cannot deport.
I can only reiterate that we did not take that decision lightly. In all other ways, the position we are in today is not one that any of us would have chosen, but the events of September 11 have fundamentally changed both the threat and the way that we must view it. We introduced the powers in Part 4 of the Act because we believed at the time, and continue to believe, that given the nature of the continuing threat and the absence of any credible alternatives, they offer the only way of protecting our security from international terrorists and from non-British citizens whom we could not remove from this country. We have brought those measures into being as a response to the most extreme circumstances.
It is perhaps worth pointing out that we cannot remove those foreign nationals precisely because we respect international conventions and the human rights of individuals who would be put at risk if they were returned to their country of origin, where they face possible death or torture. Our desire to remain within international law led us to derogate from Article 5. That is expressly provided for under Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation.
I acknowledge that the rights of individuals have been affected by our decision, but one of the primary roles of the Government is to take decisions which, while they may not be popular, they judge to be necessary to safeguard the country, so long as we remain within the law. I hesitate once again to repeat myself before the House, but we believe that the powers in Part 4 are a necessary and proportionate response to the threat we face.
I turn to a specific point raised by the Newton committee. It will come as little surprise to the House that, in the absence of any viable alternatives, we do not
require a derogation or accept the recommendation that the powers in Part 4 be replaced as a matter of urgency. However, as I indicated earlier, we do acknowledge that a replacement will be necessary by November 2006.The powers remain an essential part of the UK's fight against terrorism. We believe that, on the evidence produced, the individuals concerned pose a continuing threat. The Home Secretary has used the powers sparingly to date. Sixteen people have been certified and detained, two of whom have chosen to leave the United Kingdom, as detainees are free to do at any time. One individual has been certified, but is currently detained under other powers. In addition, in practice, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has himself applied a higher test than that of "reasonable belief" required by the legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, in his second report on the operation of Sections 21 and 23 of the Act, found that the powers were used appropriately. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission has been hearing individual appeals since May last year. To date, it has heard 13, delivering determinations in 11 of them. In all 11 cases, SIAC has upheld the Home Secretary's decision to certify. I understand that all the individuals involved are seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the determination. The House will also wish to be aware that this House is to hear the detainees' appeals against derogation later this year.
The challenge in the months ahead is to explore whether we can make existing legislative measures work more within the criminal justice system. We have a wide experience of fighting terrorism that is reflected in a wide range of criminal and terrorist legislation. That has been developed from the hard-won lessons of Northern Ireland. I believe that the United Kingdom has a good track record in securing prosecutions of terrorists directly under terrorist legislation. However, the position that we face now is a very different one.
The challenge that we face post 11 September 2001, and will face again as we debate the issue in the months ahead, is how to deal with circumstances in which prosecution and detention are not viewed as a discouragement, where we pre-empt the actions being taken by those for whom prosecution and punishment hold no fear. There are no norms when dealing with the suicide terrorism generated by Al'Qaeda and the networks working with it, in the way that there were in the past with terrorist groups that had a negotiating position and whose members sought to preserve their own lives, even if they endeavoured to take the lives of others.
The Newton committee has sought to address the issues, for which we are grateful. Among the ways suggested by the committee—
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page