| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Jim Dowd (Lewisham, West): Has my hon. Friend received a mirror-image assurance from the Government that they will now extend that measure to the powers exercised in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Straw: I have not discussed that matter, but the Minister may wish to comment on that when he winds up.
The Secretary of State has dealt with both the additional safeguards that I suggested ought to be brought in, and I am grateful to him for what he said. We accept that those do not need to be written into the Bill, since monitoring will be triggered under the other statutory powers that he has announced. He has made it clear that the House will be notified regularly of the use of the powers.
The last thing that I want to say in respect of the search powers--I shall repeat a point that I made during the debate on the timetable motion--is that the nature of searches that we are requiring people to be subject to under section 13B is no different from the searches that we require daily of people visiting the Palace of Westminster. They are almost exactly the same.
Mr. McNamara:
When did my hon. Friend last have to take his shoes off when entering the Palace?
Mr. Straw:
With great respect to my hon. Friend, it is perfectly possible for people to be asked to do that. People coming to visit us in the Palace are subject to checks by electronic machinery. To my certain knowledge--I see it almost every day in the entrance to 1 Parliament street--guards who think that they have seen someone suspicious going through then subject that person to an outer-body search. What is more, those checks have been put in place for the safety of hon. Members, and the Palace would be extremely dangerous were it not for them.
I do not find it convincing to compare the number of searches with the number of arrests. I do not have the figures, but I suspect that following the hundreds of thousands of searches that have been carried out of visitors to the Palace of Westminster, scarcely one arrest has ever been made. But by God, if those searches had not been carried out, not only would there have been a need for arrests, but a number of bombs would have been placed within the Palace of Westminster. We know that that is true, and we do not need to look in a crystal ball to know that. In 1979--when security was not as good as it is now--Airey Neave, in a terrible outrage, was blown up as he left the car park. That is the reality, and the idea that there is some arithmetical connection between the
number of searches carried out and the number of arrests made as a result is, frankly, one that I do not properly comprehend.
Rev. Ian Paisley:
We must also remember that a bomb was brought into, and detonated in, this House, causing damage to Westminster Hall.
Mr. Straw:
I was not in the House when that happened, but I remember it. I have no doubt that--as the IRA has decided to resume its bombing campaign--were it not for the searches that have been reintroduced far more rigorously, hon. Members, members of staff and the public within the Palace would be vulnerable to terrorist outrages.
Mr. Barnes:
The Palace of Westminster could presumably be included in an area in which searches were taking place, so people could be searched outside as they arrived here. Yet the public do have rights of access to the Palace. Will the legislation in any way interfere with those rights? Will a special provision be operated around the Palace, as people might be subject to two searches?
Mr. Straw:
Frankly, that is a matter for the Secretary of State to answer, and I invite him to do so when he winds up. From my reading of the Bill, I do not think that it makes any difference to the normal right of access of members of the public to this building, expect when it comes to the first of the four remaining parts of the Bill--if there is a cordon.
I now pick up a point that exercised some of my hon. Friends. I work on the basis, again, that the police will not suddenly throw up a cordon for the hell of it; they will do so for a reason. What is more, although, under the schedule, certain search powers are triggered where there is a cordon, a cordon can be permitted only in very specific circumstances. The circumstances, which are spelled out in clause 4, are:
That is a very specific circumstance in which either there has been an act of terrorism or the police have every reason to believe that there might be one.
Nobody can argue with the parking restrictions proposed in the Bill nor with the proposal that it should be made--
Mr. Bennett:
Does my hon. Friend accept that, while it may be reasonable to restrict parking, there is a problem in requiring cars to be moved? Will he get assurances that someone who is not in a fit state to drive a car is not required to move a car from outside his house?
Mr. Straw:
That is a matter for the police. However, I say this to my hon. Friend. I was present--my hon. Friend has raised this matter tangentially--at the Old Bailey when the bomb went up in 1973. The bomb had been placed in a Cortina which was parked outside the Old Bailey. If parking restrictions such as those in the Bill had been in force and if the threat had been anticipated, that bomb would not have gone up. Of course the police must take account of the fact of a driver being disabled, but in
I shall now deal with non-residential dwelling search warrants. It seems perfectly reasonable to make it easier for the police to get search warrants and it should certainly be made easier for them to search unaccompanied cargo. Such searches can currently be undertaken by Customs and Excise but not, apparently, by the police.
As I said earlier in my speech, and as I said yesterday, the Bill has been prompted solely by the unilateral resumption of terrorism by the Provisional IRA. If it had not ended the ceasefire and if it had not killed people, there would be no need for the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) yesterday raised an important question about what happens if the ceasefire is resumed and there is an end to the violence which is deemed permanent. I was asked that question on the "Today" programme this morning. It seems obvious that if we arrive at a situation where a judgment has been made by the Government and the Opposition that there is a permanent ceasefire and that a peace process is well in hand, there is no need for these measures. I repeat that the measures have been triggered only by the fact that the IRA decided to end the ceasefire. We have, however, tabled a probing amendment which would give a power to the Secretary of State to abrogate the proposed new sections if and when we arrived at the happier situation where there was a working assumption of a permanent peace.
Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke):
I am sure that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) seizes every opportunity to distance himself from my political views, so I make the point as objectively as I can that I believe that many commentators will applaud his position and the points he has made. I hope that few will dissent from joining in that applause.
On 14 March, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was speaking in the debate on the prevention and suppression of terrorism, he made this point:
Conservative Members agreed with him unreservedly.
In his statement yesterday, my right hon. and learned Friend announced that he had discussed with senior police officers
Conservative Members would have criticised him if he had not held such discussions. My right hon. and learned Friend continued by explaining that his proposals, which constitute the Bill, were
senior police officers--
Conservative Members would have condemned the Home Secretary if, the real needs having been identified, he had not sought to implement them, and without delay.
We agree with the Home Secretary because, by any criterion of judgment, Government and Parliament should give the highest priority to ensuring that the police have the powers that are needed to safeguard the public from terrorist activity. I hear the argument of those who object that the Government are moving with excessive speed and unseemly haste. It is understandable that those arguments should be made, but I do not believe that they should carry the day. My right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), in his speech on the guillotine motion, stressed that everyone was reluctant to see the guillotine being used. It is not a desirable state of affairs, but given the wider circumstances, we argue that it is the lesser of evils.
In the light of intelligence reports and having ascertained that there are weaknesses in our anti-terrorist legislation, it would be irresponsible and indefensible for the Government not to accelerate through Parliament, by timetabled debates, the measures that are necessary to increase public safety. Likewise, it would be irresponsible of the House to oppose those measures.
It is a proven fact that, during the 18 months of the so-called ceasefire, the IRA not only maintained but improved its operational capability. It recruited, trained and targeted; it further researched and developed improvised weapons; it raised funds to maintain its structures and to enhance its capabilities; and, most significantly, it actively prepared for the resumption of violence. It is, therefore, scarcely surprising that intelligence reports confirm that the IRA is even more active now than it was during the so-called ceasefire. There is every reason for urgency and the Government are right to respond with urgency.
Nor should we overlook a second, albeit lesser, on-going reality--the continuing threat from international terrorism and the need to combat it. Successive prevention of terrorism Acts have been designed to respond to threats from sources other than Northern Ireland and Irish terrorism. The slaughter of the innocents over Lockerbie stands as a bitter reminder of that reality. Less than two years ago, the Israeli embassy and Balfour house were attacked. Last year, 50 per cent. of extensions of detention related to international terrorism. The continuing need for effective and updated legislation is self-evident. Such legislation is essential to enable a free and open democratic society to protect itself against terrorism.
Some hon. Members and others oppose the Bill on the ground that it infringes civil liberties. On the civil liberties theme in general, I counter-argue that they fail to grasp some essential truths. First, as we have heard, the greatest threat to civil liberties comes not from counter-terrorist legislation but from those who believe in the bomb and the bullet and put that belief into practice. Secondly, almost all Governments of free, open, democratic societies have found it necessary to assume greater powers when confronted by people prepared to exploit freedom in their bid to destroy it and deny it to others. Thirdly, our emergency powers seek to maintain a delicate balance. In certain circumstances, they may inconvenience and restrict some people, but they contain
checks and balances that minimise that and provide some safeguards. Fourthly, our counter-terrorist legislation seeks to protect the overwhelming majority from the smallest of all minorities and the evil that it would inflict. The majority understands and accepts the limitations and restrictions demanded by such legislation. Above all, as the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said, it is right to err on the side of caution in such matters.
On the specific measures in the Bill, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said earlier, there are no new questions of principle. Its principles have been in the public domain for years and have been debated many times. Many people would be surprised to learn that they do not already exist in law. Clause 1 gives power to the police to stop and search the outer garments of pedestrians if an authorisation has been given by a senior police officer, to be confirmed by the Secretary of State, and compensates for a deficiency in the 1989 Act. That power already exists under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991. It is also contained in the new edition of that Act. Given the terrorist threat, it does not undermine civil liberties but promotes them by making it safer for us all to move about our towns and cities.
Clause 2, which enables the police on a warrant to search one or more non-residential premises for the artefacts of terrorism, infringes no civil liberty. It is common sense that the power should be available. Both powers have been well tested in Northern Ireland. The House has approved them there many times. Sadly, they are needed throughout the United Kingdom.
"If it appears to a police officer of at least the rank of superintendent that it is expedient to do so in connection with an investigation into the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism to which this section applies".
"Governments cannot shrink from deciding whether to take the measures necessary to protect the public from terrorism."--[Official Report, 14 March 1996; Vol. 273, c. 1133.]
"whether there were any additional powers which would strengthen their ability to safeguard the public."
"designed to meet the real needs that they"--
"have identified . . . they are necessary changes, which will increase public safety."--[Official Report, 1 April 1996; Vol. 275, c. 35.]
2 Apr 1996 : Column 229
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |