Terrorism Bill

My hon. Friend did hear me correctly, and if he will allow me to continue he will find out why. Some Members have said, ““What about praising the ANC or movements in Palestine, Burma or elsewhere in the world?”” It is clearly justifiable to support, praise and celebrate the aims and objectives of many such movements, particularly when they are oppressed by regimes that deny them their land, liberty and freedom of speech, without necessarily supporting all their methods in trying to achieve those aims and objectives. I want a stable and secure Palestine based on the 1967 boundaries, but I would never praise or celebrate the terrorist methods of Hamas or the former atrocities of the PLO. If oppressed opposition groups in countries around the world who have just cause choose to resort to terrorist methods because they have lost their land, liberty and freedom and have no vote, I would not celebrate, support or try to justify those terrorist actions. That is not to say that if change occurs in a country as a result of the use of terrorist methods, I would not accept that the new regime may—or in some cases may not—be better than the old one. I would not seek to justify the means by which it has gained power, but be content with the outcome. I have never believed that the ends justify the means. In a situation where a regime is persecuting people, self-defence is legitimate. Wars or UN resolutions-based actions against regimes are legitimate. As for what remains on the consciences of people in other countries in determining how they attain their freedom, I, and for that matter many Governments, have little power over that. However, where there are interventions and military actions such as in Afghanistan and Iraq—conflicts where genocide has been averted—and conflicts that involve the UN, we can hold a view that celebrates and justifies armed struggle against the oppressors, and would justifiably not describe actions against the regime in question as terrorism. Let us say that the tube train that exploded in an underground tunnel on 7 July was activated by a timing device left by someone who had left the train instead of a suicide bomber, and that the suspected bomber had later been apprehended by the police. It could take months to acquire the forensic evidence to convict the suspect, as the tunnel could have completely collapsed, with a risk to rescue workers similar to that which we saw on 7 July. Finding a fingerprint on something left by the bomber would be like finding a needle in a haystack and would take longer than two weeks. The stakes are now so high that half measures will not do. The nation looks to us to safeguard its security. If the Bill is not passed in something that relates to its current form and—God forbid—another atrocity on the scale of 7 July occurs because a detained suspect is released after a few weeks, despite the fact that he remains under suspicion on good intelligence grounds, we would have to live with that knowledge for the rest of our lives.