---

Terrorism (Foreign Policy Aspects)

It is a great pleasure to welcome you to the Chair, Sir Nicholas, and to speak under your chairmanship this afternoon. I also welcome the Minister back from his travels in Afghanistan. I congratulate the Chairman and the members of the Select Committee on their report. This has been an excellent debate that has made a great contribution. Let me start on a personal note. On 11 September 2001, my husband was working for Delta airlines. That was one of the American airlines that did not, fortunately, lose aircraft. However, it was, of course, deeply affected by the losses. It was the first time in history that anyone had conceived of using aircraft for that purpose, and the loss of life of passengers, air crew and people in the buildings was beyond imagination. It is worth remembering that successive Governments had come to grips with the terrorist threat that we then faced in this country and in Europe. Regrettably, when Europeans, such as my husband, who worked for American carriers tried to persuade the Americans that it was a possibility that terrorists might take to the skies and that that might take a form as gross as that which we saw on 9/11, their words fell on deaf ears. I am delighted that America has now recovered and taken dramatic measures to prevent such dreadful events from happening again. I am sure that many of us, like my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), are thinking of the British and other hostages in Iraq. We wish the Foreign Office every success in negotiating their release. There has been much talk about the middle east peace process. I am envious of the excellent visits that have been made, particularly the recent one by the Select Committee, which clearly learned a great deal. Its members were very privileged to make some of the visits that they did. Will the Minister comment on the Foreign Office assessment of the likely success of the current middle east process, looking forward to the elections in Israel next year? In particular, as one or two speakers have hinted during the debate, will it be a genuine two-states settlement or, as regrettably appears likely at the moment, a unilateral approach by Israel? An update on that situation will be most welcome. I have followed closely the debate in the European Union on the fight against terrorism. Since the attacks of 11 September 2001, the European Union has been determined to step up its fight against terrorism and, in 2002, it adopted a framework decision on combating terrorism. Can the Minister give us a progress report? Have the member states been able to align their legislation and set out minimum rules on terrorist offences? The framework decision lays down the penalties that member states must incorporate in their national legislation and I know that one of them relates to the freezing of funds of a list of terrorists and terrorist groups. That is not working wholly as was intended, and I shall be interested to hear whether the Minister shares my view. In particular, the 1998 joint action that was outlined on the identification, tracing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds from crime has not been successful in Zimbabwe. Does he share my concerns in that regard? I understand that the Minister has just returned from Afghanistan. British and American forces have had some success there in removing the Taliban. However, does he fear that they have merely been displaced? The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), who chairs the Select Committee, has performed an excellent task this afternoon in giving us a good overview of the report despite not having sat through the evidence. Now that we know that al-Qaeda is operating from more remote cells—that there is not just one headquarters—it is much more difficult to respond to it. Will the Minister update us on his assessment of that matter? In our view, terrorism and extremism must be confronted and overcome wherever they appear. Obviously, a more international approach to terrorism is more effective. Action must be taken where necessary against rogue states—the breeding grounds of international terrorism. We are deeply concerned that opium growing in Afghanistan seems to be continuing unabated; there is undoubtedly evidence that proves that much of the income from the opium growing is being used to fund terrorism. Some 18 months ago, I attended an excellent briefing given by the UK ambassador to the United Nations, Sir Emyr Jones-Parry. I understand that dealing with opium growing is a massive task. However, the Government are president of the organisation that is examining the matter—I think that it is being done through the G8—and I am disappointed at the results to date. We would lend every possible support that we could to the Government's encouragement for the growth of alternative crops, although that would obviously take place jointly with the Minister's colleagues, not just at the Foreign Office but at the Department for International Development. However, there must be some control of the opium industry, which seems to have continued to grow unabated, even though we have seen the demise of the Taliban. The situation in Iraq has provoked a stimulating debate this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington took a different view from me on the war on Iraq, and raised the question of how long our troops will be based there. Reverting for a moment to Afghanistan, I shall mention that a group will be going from the Allenbrook barracks at Topcliffe to Afghanistan, but we still do not know what remit the next set of troops going to Afghanistan will have. Will the Minister update us on how the Government see the projected withdrawal from Iraq and give us his view on whether that can be done elegantly, as I am sure everyone in the Chamber this afternoon would wish? The conclusions in the Select Committee report—paragraph 25 onwards—relate to the migration of people, particularly across the Mediterranean, and refer to the countries of the Maghreb. We ignore the countries of the Maghreb at our peril. My mind was not put any more at rest on that matter when I turned to the Government response to the Select Committee report. We have seen the recent developments in the Spanish principalities of Ceuta and Melilla, with Africans trying to come into the European Union through those enclaves. Conclusion 37 of the Select Committee is well made and hard hitting:"““We conclude that insufficient priority has been attached to an exchange of high-level visits between the United Kingdom and Morocco.””" That could also apply to some of the other Maghreb countries. When the Minister sums up, will he tell us what measures the Government are taking in respect of the migration of peoples across the Mediterranean? As early as July 2003, the Conservative party called for an examination of international law. It struck a chord when the Prime Minister agreed to come up with some proposals. However, I think that those proposals were published some time ago, so it would be helpful if the Minister could update us on what stage has been reached on that matter. In connection with domestic policy, there are other efforts that the Government could make, particularly to avoid a clash of civilisations in the UK. It would not be in any of our interests to give disaffected Muslims, whom al-Qaeda might attempt to recruit, the impression that we are their enemy. We certainly are not. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government are minded to incorporate some of the proposals that we set out when the Terrorism Bill reached the House of Commons, such as encouraging the training of more imams in Britain, so that their teachings will be seen as consistent with the society in which they preach? That would be seen to be a positive instrument to deploy. I speak as the Member for the Vale of York in north Yorkshire and it was a source of great concern to us all in the Yorkshire and Humber region that the culprits of the July bombings came from the Leeds-Bradford area. We thought locally that the integration of all the different cultures and civilisations in Yorkshire and Humber had been handled as sensitively as possible. When we saw the hatred felt by the four accused suspects and the lengths to which they went, that was an obvious source of concern. Will the Government consider measures, such as introducing the training of more imams in this country, to lead to greater integration? Overall, we welcome and commend the conclusions; they are well thought out and well examined. The evidence that the Select Committee took speaks forcefully for itself. I recognise the work, over successive reports, that the Government have done. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) suggested that perhaps the gloomiest outcome for the United Kingdom would be for the war on terror to strike at the heart of the country: we have already had one such successful attack, and one less successful one, this year. What resources are the Government making available to combat such a threat? Why, in particular, have the Government not seen fit to appoint a Minister for homeland security—we have appointed such a shadow Minister—who would straddle the various Departments? There are too many Departments involved in the fight against terrorism in this country—there are international, defence and home aspects, as I mentioned, such as the Terrorism Bill and other legislation. It would be welcome also to recognise that the country has, at present, little protection against rogue ballistic missiles. We recognise the work currently being undertaken in the United States, and we make a plea to the Minister and ask whether similar work is being reciprocated here. There has been much talk this afternoon about rendition. The Government set out, on page 8 of their response to the Select Committee report, in response to conclusion 12:"““This is not the same as operating a general policy of use of information extracted under torture. The UK unreservedly condemns the use of torture and has worked hard with our international partners to eradicate this.””" I have great sympathy with the position set out by Condoleezza Rice on behalf of the United States on their policy of rendition, being one of transport and not related to torture in any shape or form. Equally, however, I have sympathy with some of the excellent points that were made this afternoon. There is a greater need for transparency on what form such transport is taken, what category of prisoner has been transported, and for what specific purpose. It has been a rewarding debate, in which I am delighted to have taken part. I look forward to the next Select Committee report on this issue.