---

Terrorism (Foreign Policy Aspects)

: I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. Our security and intelligence services are alert to that matter. The right hon. Gentleman would not wish me to talk about how that is being approached, but I know from speaking to those agencies and other Ministers that it is a high priority, and the right hon. Gentleman is right to raise the matter. I am sorry, Sir Nicholas, that there is so much to address that I have not yet got around to rendition. However, I would like to speak about the middle east for a few moments because that matter has been addressed at some length in hon. Members' speeches. Like members of the Committee, I was in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Ramallah recently—just a few weeks ago—and I am torn about what to read into current events. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South described them as an earthquake in middle eastern politics. This has been an extraordinary time. In Tel Aviv, I met Mr. Golali, who is possibly the architect of the unilateralist approach, and I am sure the Committee met him too. I do not feel as gloomy as the Committee does about the possibility of Gaza and the west bank—if we can make progress—reviving their economies and giving their young people the dignity of an opportunity to tap their own potential. That, of course, is what we have to do. As the Committee clearly and vividly discussed, the unilateralist acts have meant a lot of pain for a lot of people, most of whom are Palestinians. I went to see the building of the wall and I saw the wall itself just a few weeks ago. I was amazed by its intrusiveness and by the effect that it is having on people's lives, particularly in Jerusalem. Let me say one thing, however. We have heard pleas. We have been told that we are not being hard enough on the Israelis and that we are not doing enough. However, when I met Mr. John Jenkins, our consul-general in Jerusalem, he told me that we are the only country that is bothering to follow up consular cases of passport holders who might be married to a Palestinian or living in Jerusalem and who have found themselves indisposed or whose quality of life has deteriorated as a consequence of the wall being built. We are actually the most active country by far in trying to persuade the Israelis that they should not be doing what they are. I have heard nothing today with which I disagree. What amazes me is that there is not a much fiercer debate in Israel about whether it wants a failing state—a basket case—on its doorstep. That is the real question. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn talked about the child playing in the dirt beneath the posters lionising suicide bombers. He is absolutely right: there can be no clearer illustration of the problem. Having said that—this is the point raised by the hon. Member for New Forest, East—I also made sure that I spoke to some of the old kibbutzniks. I went to a kibbutz on the old Jerusalem road and after a while, very reluctantly and grudgingly, the people there said, ““Yes, life is easier since the barrier was built. We don't worry as much.”” One has to try to understand the politics of the issue and to balance what is going on inside Israel. There has been a fierce debate. We know that the situation is having an extraordinarily detrimental effect on the west bank and the fledgling Palestinian state. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling told us of the crazy idea of building a tunnel. We can barely make Eurostar pay, because of the cost of the channel tunnel. In fact, we cannot make it pay, which is the subject of endless financial proposals and schemes. Imagine trying to build a tunnel across to the west bank for 1.5 million people in Gaza. It is absolute madness. I would like a road and a railway to be built. Indeed, I would like the British to build it. I probably should not say that, but we are good at building such things. I am not sure that they should necessarily be handed over to a mighty company from another mighty nation. I suspect that the Palestinians would very much like to see us involved in such a project, which would make life there so much easier. It would be the start of creating a viable economy for their state. As hon. Members have said, we must get rid of these barriers and the blockades on roads. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn explained that there were very few cars on a particular road because it was an Israeli-only road. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South said, those are not the dreams on which Israel was set up. We know what has happened to those dreams. We know about terrorism and its effects on Israel and the Israeli psyche. There must be a better way. We urge the Israeli Government constantly on the issue. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam asked whether we were being energetic enough; I think we are. Our ambassador in Tel Aviv and our consul general in Jerusalem are as assiduous as any diplomats anywhere in the middle east in putting pressure on the Israelis to reconsider. It is ironic that the greatest ally to have emerged for the Palestinians is the Israeli high court, which has challenged the route of the barrier and the way in which it has reduced to penury so many people and made their lives a misery. The Israeli high court has found in their favour on a number of occasions, and that is an interesting development. It has been said, however, that it is possible that things will go backwards, not forwards, and we have to take that seriously. Many important points have been raised, but in the few minutes left I want to deal with the question of rendition. It is a great story, of course; newspapers love it. It is a wonderful cosh to smash the Government over the head with. However, as the Committee's report tells us, the threat of terrorism is a huge challenge that affects us all. The Government, like our allies—including the US Administration—have constantly tried to strike a balance between liberty and security. We should never forget that. I do not know about other Members, but I get few letters about the victims of terrorism. I get a lot of letters from lobbyists for various organisations about the civil rights of suspects. That is quite right; we should be concerned about that. That is what defines us as a civilised country. But we should not forget the victims. The balance is never easy to strike, I do not care what anyone says. We can hear all kinds of facile analyses, but it is never easy to strike the balance, as we have been trying to. We have to preserve our citizens' freedom while preserving them from the terrorists' indiscriminate violence. We need to work together within the rule of law to use every tool at our disposal to deal with the threat of terrorism. We do not deport or extradite any person to another state where there are substantive grounds to believe that they will face a risk of torture or where the death penalty will be applied. That is difficult in many countries where we have troops on the ground who are trying to defeat terrorism and create better societies. It is not easy. Condoleezza Rice set out in her statement of 5 December the US attitude to torture. It complies with the UN convention against torture and does not authorise or condone it. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in response on the same day:"““We, the EU and the wider international community must be clear on the terrorism threat we face. Modern terrorism means mass casualties as we saw on 11 September and 7 July . . . It is right that democracies should discuss these issues, including the importance of the legal framework, which we all observe. Secretary Rice's reply makes clear that US policy is to comply with the UN Convention Against Torture and, in this respect ‘the United States government complies with its Constitution, its laws, and its treaty obligations. Acts of physical or mental torture are expressly prohibited. The United States government does not authorise or condone torture of detainees. Torture, and conspiracy to commit torture, are crimes under US law, wherever they may occur in the world.'””" My right hon. Friend added,"““the US has ‘fully respected the sovereignty' of other countries that co-operate in these matters””." Finally, I remind the Committee of what the Prime Minister said on 7 December:"““First, let me draw a very clear distinction indeed between the idea of suspects being taken from one country to another and any sense whatever that ourselves, the United States or anyone condones the use of torture. Torture cannot be justified in any set of circumstances at all. The practice of rendition as described by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been American policy for many years. We have not had such a situation here, but that has been American policy for many, many years. However, it must be applied in accordance with international conventions, and I accept entirely Secretary of State Rice's assurance that it has been.””—[Official Report, 7 December 2005; Vol. 440, c. 862–3.]"