时间：2005年3月9日下午
地点：英国议会下院
时段：Prime Minister’s Questions
事件：托尼·布莱尔VS迈克尔·霍华德
Mr. Kevin McNamara (Hull, North) (Lab): At the weekend, my right hon. Friend welcomed statements by the leaders of Sinn Fein that they would help to bring Mr. McCartney’s murderers to justice. Does he share the horror and contempt that the rest of the community in these islands feel at statements by the IRA yesterday that it was prepared to assassinate the murderers of Mr. McCartney but not prepared to bring them to justice? When my right hon. Friend next meets the leaders of Provisional Sinn Fein or has any contact with them through No. 10, will he clearly bring it to their attention that there is nowhere in these islands where we can have parallel police forces, kangaroo courts or assassinations of people whom we do not particularly like?
The Prime Minister: I agree totally with my hon. Friend. From someone who has always been prepared to speak up for the nationalist community in Northern Ireland, his words are especially telling. I make it absolutely clear that the IRA’s statement yesterday defies description. It was extraordinary and cannot be justified in any shape or form. There is no way that we can make any progress in Northern Ireland that includes Sinn Fein unless there is a complete end to violence of whatever kind.
Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con): Today, the House will debate the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. It is important that we all understand its scope. At the weekend, the Prime Minister said that its provisions could be used against protesters against the G8 meeting in Scotland. Did he mean that?
The Prime Minister: I have read that I am supposed to have said that, but I confess that I have absolutely no recollection of saying it. There are people who want to protest against the G8 meeting—incidentally, protests happen on a very wide range of issues, and I obviously see many of them on my travels around the place—but the control orders are specifically designed to defeat terrorism. For people who want to come and protest in this country, there is a long-standing democratic right and they are perfectly entitled to do so.
Mr. Howard: I have the newspaper report here. The Prime Minister was asked—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Howard: The Prime Minister was asked—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I want silence when the right hon. and learned Gentleman is addressing the House.
Mr. Howard: The Prime Minister was asked whether the Home Secretary would use the new anti-terror laws against G8 protesters, and he replied,
"I couldn't rule it out."
So what on earth was he on about?
The Prime Minister: I will have to check whatever transcript there is. Let me make it absolutely clear that, of course, these terror laws are not to be used against protesters. They are to be used against people suspected of terrorism.
Let us get back to the central question at the heart of the terrorism legislation. The reason that we are introducing it has nothing to do with people making protests; it is because the police and the security services are advising us that they need these control orders and, what is more, need them to be applied in circumstances in which there is reasonable suspicion that people are engaged in planning or plotting terrorist acts. We have made a concession today on judicial scrutiny. As I said in this House, that is not the issue of principle. The issue of principle is having these control orders. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he will ensure that the Conservative party supports these proposals. They are right and they are necessary. This is the advice that we are being given by the security services and the police, and I believe that it would be irresponsible to flout it.
Mr. Howard: Let us see where we are on the Bill. First, the Government said that there would be no concessions at all. Then they conceded that control orders on house arrests should be made by a judge. This week, they said that they would not extend that to the other control orders. Today, they have backtracked on that, too. Given the scale of the Prime Minister’s defeat in the House of Lords yesterday, will he now reconsider his position on the sunset clause, so that Parliament can have a proper opportunity to consider the best response to the terrorist threat?
The Prime Minister: No, I will not do that. It is correct. I think that I said in the House, and repeated at my monthly press conference, that judicial scrutiny was not the key point of principle. We have made a concession on that, and I hope that that will satisfy people. In the end, as I explained to the House, the question was whether we were able to ensure that the control orders could be used effectively by the police and security services. We have found a way of doing that. If necessary, the Home Secretary can apply the orders himself, in exceptional cases, otherwise, it has to go to the judge. I am afraid that we are not prepared to accept either the amendment on the sunset clause or the other amendment voted for by the House of Lords, and which the Conservatives in the House of Lords backed, to change the burden of proof. That would not be wise; it would be contrary to the strong advice given to us by our security services and our police, and I am simply not prepared to do it.
It is perfectly obvious that this country faces a terrorist threat the like of which we have not faced before. The advice that is being given to me by our security services and police is clear: we need these control orders, and we need them on the basis of reasonable suspicion of engagement in planning or plotting terrorist activity. If I were to accept the suggestions that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making, I would be doing so in contradiction of the express advice that I have recei ved, and I will not do it.
Mr. Howard: We all accept that there is a terrorist threat. The question is: what is the best way of dealing with it? We have just heard from the Prime Minister that what was a point of principle for him last week is no longer a point of principle for him this week. The question that I asked him was about the sunset clause, and he did not answer it. So what I want to know is: is he seriously saying that he would prefer to have no Bill at all than to have a Bill that would last for eight months so that Parliament could have a proper opportunity to consider the best response to the terrorist threat?
The Prime Minister: First, let me correct the right hon. and learned Gentleman on one point. I thought that I had said the opposite—that the judicial scrutiny issue was not the point of principle. The point of principle is on the control orders and the burden of proof.
In my view, what is important is to have the legislation that we believe will work. I do not agree with the sunset clause, for this simple reason: it is important that we send a clear signal now that this legislation is on the statute book and will remain on the statute book. I will simply say to him that his position, as I understand it, certainly from the position of his shadow Attorney-General, is that the Conservatives want the sunset clause so that they can return to the issue later and oppose control orders in principle. In my view, that would be completely wrong and would send out absolutely the wrong signal from the House.
When the right hon. and learned Gentleman was Home Secretary, he dealt with issues such as exclusion orders under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. We face today a terrorist threat that I would have thought is obvious to every Member of the House. The advice that we have is that we need these control orders in legislation. We can review the legislation annually, but it should not be subject to a sunset clause, as the Home Secretary has made clear. In particular, we cannot accept the burden of proof being different from that of reasonable suspicion.
In the House of Lords yesterday, the Conservative Front Bench voted for a change to that burden of proof provision, too. For those reasons, we cannot accept his amendments. He will have to come to a decision, and so will the Conservative party, as to whether to accept the legislation. We have made concessions that we think are reasonable; we will not make those that are against the direct advice that we are receiving.
Mr. Howard: If the Prime Minister thinks that it is only the Conservative Front Bench in the House of Lords that is opposed to the Bill, he is living on another planet. I did take action against terrorism when I was Home Secretary, and when we brought the prevention of terrorism legislation to this House, he opposed it. He opposed it even when the terrorist bombs of the IRA were raining down on Heathrow airport. We will therefore take no lessons from him about the need to be tough on terrorism.
Is not this the position? We offered to extend the current powers of detention. The Prime Minister rejected that. We offered a sunset clause so that the legislation could be examined properly in eight months’ time, and he has rejected that. Is he really saying that no Bill at all is better than a Bill for eight months? Where on earth is the logic in that?
The Prime Minister: Where on earth is the logic in the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s position, which is that we should put back in place part 4 of the previous legislation which was struck down by the House of Lords?
Let me return once again to the central point: the House of Lords said that the previous legislation should not stand. It is important that we listen to that, and we have done so. That legislation expires on 14 March. We have brought forward legislation in accordance with the advice of the police and security services that it is necessary for the defeat of terrorism.
We have done our level best to meet reasonable concerns. We are not going to meet the concerns that he has now put forward, because it would be irresponsible and wrong. Yes, we must take a position and stick to it, and we are doing so. When the legislation comes back, however, he will have to decide whether he will march the Conservative party into the No Lobby to vote against legislation that our security services and police advise is necessary for the protection of the citizens of this country. I believe, even if he does not, that national security comes first.
Mr. Howard: The Government said a month ago that the existing Act
"remains . . . valid, enforceable and effective"
and that in
"exercising the powers . . . the Secretary of State is . . . acting lawfully".
That is what the Government said about the existing powers one month ago. We have said that we will co-operate with the Government in renewing those powers. We have said that we will co-operate with the Government if there is a sunset clause in the Bill. I have come to the conclusion that this Prime Minister wants this Bill to fail. He wants to pretend that he is the only one who is tough on terrorism. Is not it a dreadful measure from a desperate Prime Minister, and should he not be thoroughly ashamed of himself?
The Prime Minister: We will have this debate here, and we will have this debate in the country, and we will see where the shame lies; but in my judgment the shame will lie with the Conservatives, who, faced with legislation to prevent terrorism—faced with legislation on which we were advised by our police and security services—are going to vote against it. If they want to vote against it, let them: we will be content ultimately to have the verdict of the country on it.
