Terrorism Bill

We have reached the stage in the debate when it is unlikely that minds will be changed. Some of us probably feel that it is more important to get on the record, so that our constituents and acquaintances know how and why we will vote this evening. Many hon. Members consider the day they are first elected to be one of the proudest of their lives. They see that they are about to engage in the governance and future of the country as a whole, and deal with the most serious issues. One of those issues is the security of the country and of the constituents whom we represent. Therefore, I resent the fact that this debate has moved away from a serious discussion of the issue in recent weeks, and that the threat from terrorism is used for political advantage rather than as a spur to drawing up appropriate legislation for our statute books. I am critical of all parties in that respect. I am upset—to say the least—to have discovered in the weekend press that Mr. Gould is polling on behalf of the Labour party to see how terrorism plays as an issue in the political debate. I resent the allegations from all sides that people who express a view on the matter can be accused of being soft on terrorism. No one in this Chamber is being soft on terrorism; we are simply trying to find the best way to confront and end it. I am also concerned by the ludicrous examples that some Opposition Members have used, as they trivialise the debate. The debate on this amendment centres on the following questions. Is it necessary? Do the Government’s proposals represent an appropriate alternative? Is the expression of those proposals appropriate, or could there be unforeseen consequences? Many hon. Members have tried to consult as best they can on those questions. A group of us met Gareth Peirce, a lawyer who, as many will know, has been involved in terrorism cases for nearly 30 years. We first came across her when we asked her to engage in the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four cases. She should know whether enough statutes already exist to prosecute terrorists as she has already defended people accused of carrying out terrorist acts: some were innocent, others may well have been guilty. Gareth Peirce’s response was very concise. Why are we bringing in this Bill? The common law offence of incitement has been a crime for more than two centuries. Incitement to murder, which has already been referred to by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), is contained in section 4 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which says that it is an offence to "““encourage . . . any person to murder any other person””." Again, incitement to violence is covered by section 4(1) of the Public Order Act 1986, which states that it is a criminal offence to use "““threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour . . . whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used.””" Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 makes it an offence to invite support for proscribed terrorist organisations. Moreover, it is not as though all that legislation has not led to prosecutions, the most recent being the Hamza case. My worry is based on my experience with legislation that is worded so broadly that it is ineffective and can be used to entrap the innocent. There are unforeseen consequences when we in this House legislate poorly. We should learn the lessons of the original prevention of terrorism legislation, which was used first of all against Irish republicans and which allowed the police and other authorities to undertake widespread sweeps of that community. Those sweeps caught up the innocent who were then, in many instances, subject to miscarriages of justice. We make people vulnerable when we legislate unclearly and with such a breadth of impact as this legislation would have, and that is my worry.