Terrorism Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

I simply do not believe that there is enough time to understand the unexplained contradictions between the philosophy behind this legislation and that behind the Northern Ireland peace process. I have persistently sought to work constructively with the Government—and particularly the Northern Ireland Office—to ensure significant progress in Northern Ireland, and to that extent I agree that the Government can take some credit for what has happened there. But I find very frustrating the virtual absence in these debates—probably owing to time pressure—of any significant explanation as to why the Home Office takes such a different approach to this legislation from the one we are expected to support for Northern Ireland. The Government need the time to explain why, for example, internment, which was universally regarded as having failed in the Province, is now proposed as a solution to international terrorism. There is a grain of explanation in the form of a comment yesterday by the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward):"““The Government are looking at a specific UK threat from a kind of terrorism different from that being discussed here.””—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 8 November 2005; c. 15.]" Well, it does not seem very different to the victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland. If the Government want our support and sympathy in these difficult times, they need to provide themselves with enough time to explain the apparent contradictions writ large—certainly in the eyes of Northern Ireland residents—as the Government increasingly try to suggest that there are two different kinds of terrorism. Furthermore, and perhaps ironically, only today Northern Ireland offences legislation is being published—