With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, which is being introduced today.

On 26 January, I told the House that I intended to bring forward a Bill as quickly as possible to repeal the powers in part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001—the 2001 Act—and to replace them with a new scheme of control orders applicable to all suspected terrorists irrespective of whether they are British or foreign nationals and, in relation to most controls, irrespective of the type of terrorism with which they are involved. The Bill is designed to meet the Law Lords' criticism that the previous legislation was both disproportionate and discriminatory.

The Bill needs to be seen in the context of the scale of the continuing and serious threat to the security of the United Kingdom from terrorism. I will today publish a series of discussion papers that set out the Government's view of that threat and our strategy for reducing it. In 2004, I laid before the House a copy of the report of the noble and learned Lord Carlile of Berriew on the operation of the part 4 powers in the 2001 Act. Let no one be in any doubt that there are terrorists here and abroad who want to attack the UK and its interests.

Some believe that the absence in this country of a terrorist outrage such as 9/11 or Madrid means that the terrorist threat has somehow passed us by or failed to materialise. That view is short-sighted, complacent, ignorant of the facts and potentially cavalier in its disregard of the safety of this country. I pay tribute today to the vigilance and professionalism of our security authorities, including the police, for all that they have done and are doing to keep this country safe. It is their efforts, rather than any reduction in the ambition of terrorist organisations, that have protected us from such an attack.

My principal responsibility as Home Secretary is to protect this country and everyone within it. I am determined that we will take the steps necessary to ensure our safety. The Government's preferred approach—our first option—is to prosecute and convict terrorists. We are considering the scope for new offences, including that of being concerned in

"the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism"

and other measures, with a view to helping the police and prosecuting authorities to bring more cases to court. I intend to bring forward further counter-terrorist legislation on those issues as soon as parliamentary time allows.

Some suggest that we could bring more prosecutions, if only we would allow intercept to be used in criminal proceedings. I have thought carefully about that, but for all the reasons set out in my written statement to the House on 26 January, I do not believe that it is true. The reality is that intercept is only a part—often a small part—of the intelligence picture in such cases. Its main value is usually in helping the intelligence and law enforcement agencies to direct their resources, such as surveillance, most effectively to disrupt terrorist activities and gather evidence to support arrests and prosecutions.

The fact is that there will always be some people—including some extremely dangerous people—whom we cannot prosecute, either because the material that we have is inadmissible in criminal proceedings, or because it cannot be used for fear of revealing, and so endangering, sources and techniques. Some say that we should do nothing about those people, or that we should just monitor their activities through surveillance and so forth and hope to deflect them in that way. I do not accept that—the risk is too great. That is the reason for the Bill that I am publishing today.

The Law Lords' judgment on 16 December found that the part 4 powers in the 2001 Act were disproportionate and discriminatory in that they applied only to foreign nationals, and we had apparently managed to contain the threat from British nationals without detention. As I told the House on 26 January, I accept that judgment, and therefore believe that it is important to address those concerns. We should not simply renew the current legislation, which the Law Lords so overwhelmingly regard as flawed. We should replace it—with strong measures that are fully compatible with the European convention on human rights, and applicable to both British and foreign nationals.

The Bill that I propose empowers the Secretary of State to make control orders and to impose under them a range of controls on the individuals concerned that will be tailored to meet the threat that each poses. The purpose of the orders is to prevent an individual from continuing to carry out terrorist-related activities. The orders will be time-limited, but they will be capable of being renewed or remade if the threat posed by the individual justifies it.

The Bill makes provision for a range of controls to be imposed. The list will include prohibitions or restrictions on the possession of specified articles or specified services or facilities, on association and movement, and on an individual's place of residence, place of work or occupation. Other restrictions will be placed on those individuals' ability to travel, including abroad. A breach of a control order without prior consent will be a criminal offence, triable in the usual way through the criminal courts and punishable by imprisonment or a fine, or both.

At the top end, the obligations that could be imposed could include a requirement for the individual to remain in a particular place at all times, or some similar measure that amounted to a deprivation of liberty. The place in question will vary with the threat posed by the individual. It could be the individual's own home, or his or her parents' home. It could even, in certain circumstances, be in accommodation owned and managed by the Government.

However, such severe forms of control order would require a derogation from article 5 of the ECHR before they could be implemented. As hon. Members know, article 15 of the ECHR allows member states to derogate from certain aspects of the convention where there is a

"state of public emergency threatening the life of the nation"

and the measures proposed are

"strictly required by the exigencies of the situation".

Therefore, the basis of any derogation would be those two conditions—the threat to the life of the nation, and the necessity for measures that would deprive people of liberty. The Bill therefore provides that I can make orders that require a derogation only if the following factors apply: first, if there is a designated derogation in force from all or part of article 5 in respect of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation; secondly, if the obligation imposed is such as has been described in that derogation; and thirdly, if I am satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the person is, or has been, involved in terrorism, and that the imposition of that obligation on that person is strictly required for the purposes of protecting the public from risks arising out of, or associated with, that public emergency.

In the event that a derogation was necessary, I would make the designated derogation order. It would come into force immediately, but under the Human Rights Act 1998, it would need to be confirmed by a vote in each House of Parliament within 40 days of its having been made if it were to continue in force. So the conditions of any derogation—that is, the threat to the life of the nation and the necessity for the measures that would amount to a deprivation of liberty—would be considered, assessed and voted upon by every Member of Parliament if it were to remain in force. I believe that this framework is robust and enables the security of this country to be properly addressed in all foreseeable circumstances.

These are rightly onerous conditions, which Parliament will have to consider at any time when a derogation is made. I have, of course, carefully considered the current situation, and I have to tell the House that it is not my intention to seek a derogation at this time.

I am clear that a derogation is justified on the basis of the threat that we currently face. As I told the House on 26 January, there is a continuing public emergency as a result of the threat from al-Qaeda, its agenda and its adherents, including the different groups and linkages that make up the al-Qaeda movement in its broadest sense.

However, on the second criterion for derogation—the necessity for the measures—I have been advised by the police and security authorities that they consider that the control orders that will be established by this legislation are sufficient to deal with the individuals concerned and that deprivation of liberty, although valuable, is not "strictly required", in the language of the convention. They support the measures in the Bill that allow me to impose obligations up to, but not including, a

"requirement to remain in a particular place at all times",

and the flexibility that they give me to tailor the controls imposed under any order to the threat posed by the particular individual. The security authorities tell me that at this stage they do not want to add anything to the range of controls that I am suggesting.

Of course, these circumstances may change in future, and quickly. Were the current situation to worsen, we could find ourselves in a position in which it was imperative that we were able to place a particular individual or individuals under an obligation to remain in their homes at all times, or to impose some other measure that amounts, in effect, to a deprivation of their liberty within the meaning of article 5 of the European convention on human rights. The Bill will allow me to impose such an obligation on a particular individual or individuals as appropriate, provided that a designated derogation order setting out such obligations is in force.

When considering whether to derogate, my starting point will be, as now, the threat that we face. I shall look to the security authorities to advise me on that and on the measures that they think are strictly required to meet that threat. I shall also take advice on the legal and other issues that arise in relation to any proposal to derogate before making a final decision.

If my decision is to derogate, I shall make the necessary designated derogation order and lay it before Parliament. As I said, the order will come into force immediately but will continue in force only if it is confirmed by a vote in both Houses within 40 days of being made.

Any derogation from article 5 of the ECHR raises serious issues. Were we to derogate, we would need to keep the need for such a derogation under regular review. The Bill therefore provides for me to lay an order, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, before Parliament every year after the first to the effect that it continues to be necessary to have the power to impose derogating obligations by reference to the derogation. That derogating control order would have effect beyond the first year of the derogation only while such an order was in force, so Parliament would have an opportunity annually to have its say on whether any derogation continued to be necessary.

The Bill gives certain responsibilities to the Secretary of State. I know that some hon. Members would prefer those responsibilities to be allocated entirely to the judiciary. I have listened carefully to all that has been said on this point, both inside and outside the House, and I have sought in the Bill to address the concerns that have been expressed. However, as I said, the Government's, and my, prime responsibility is to protect the nation's security. In many ways, that is our paramount task. Decisions in this area are properly for the Executive, who are fully accountable to Parliament for their actions. However, when an individual is deprived of liberty for any length of time that is, of course, also a matter for the courts. Everyone must recognise that in the interests of security and speed an order may need to be imposed immediately, but in those exceptional cases of a clear requirement to make an order depriving an individual of his liberty, the courts must determine as soon as practicable whether the order should continue.

It follows that the judiciary has a critical role to play in the process. In relation to control orders not requiring derogation, its role is to review and, when appropriate, to confirm decisions made by the Executive. For derogating control orders, its role is to decide, on the merits, whether to continue the order or to refuse to confirm it. The Bill makes full provision for that.

The Bill provides for non-derogating control orders to be subject to challenge in the High Court by the person against whom the order has been made, and for the Court to apply the principles of judicial review in hearing the case. The Court will be able to consider the issues in both open and closed session, with a special advocate representing the interests of the subject of the order in closed sessions.

Derogating control orders will be subject, as befits the seriousness of the issues raised, to a different form of scrutiny by the High Court involving an automatic two-stage process. On being made, the order will have to be referred immediately to the Court for consideration within seven days at a preliminary hearing to assess whether the Home Secretary had reasonable grounds, prima facie, for making the order. Both sides will be represented. There will be open and closed sessions and the interests of the subject of the order will be represented in closed session by a special advocate.

If the Court were so satisfied, the case would be automatically referred to the High Court for a full hearing at which the Court would decide for itself, on an assessment of all the material, whether the order should have been made and what conditions should have been applied. Again there will be open and closed sessions and the interests of the subject of the order will be represented in closed session by a special advocate. It will be open to the Court at both stages to strike down the Secretary of State's order or give him directions to modify it.

I have published the Bill today in full confidence that it meets the situation that we face in three important respects. First, I believe that it meets the judgment of the Law Lords. Secondly, the Bill rightly confirms that the security of this country lies with the Government of the day, fully responsible to Parliament and the country. The Government are fully accountable to Parliament for the way in which they carry out their responsibilities, and under the Bill that accountability will be manifest, demonstrable and timely. At the same time, the process of judicial scrutiny that I propose should meet the genuine concerns that have been raised. Thirdly, the Bill will ensure that the measures that we put in place fully meet the threat that we face from terrorism, both as we see it today and as it might, despite all our best efforts and those of other countries, develop and mutate over time.

This is an important Bill. It raises serious and difficult issues. But we must have the capacity to protect our people now and in the future. It would be the gravest dereliction of duty to wait until we have suffered a terrorist outrage here, and then respond only after the event. I am not prepared to take a risk of that kind, and I hope the House will join me in that. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.

I thank the Home Secretary for the advance notice of the statement and for his advance briefing on the subject. The whole House will join us in paying tribute to the vigilance and professionalism of the police and security services who protect us so well.

I do not underestimate the difficulty of the problem facing the Home Secretary. I accept that there are no easy answers, and as far as I am aware, nobody is saying that we should do nothing. However, I have to tell him that I believe that he has settled on the wrong answers, which will sacrifice essential and long-standing British principles of liberty and justice in a way that is unlikely materially to enhance the security of our people—indeed, which may act to reduce that security.

The Government have been forced to this point by the decision of the House of Lords two months ago. One of the comments by Lord Hoffmann is particularly relevant:

"I said that the power of detention is at present confined to foreigners and I would not like to give the impression that all that was necessary was to extend the power to United Kingdom citizens as well. In my opinion, such a power in any form is not compatible with our constitution".

But that, in effect, is what the Home Secretary is doing. Although he has qualified it—properly and in response to representations—with some safeguards, under these proposals, for the first time in modern British history, a politician will be able by order to restrain the liberties of a British subject. He will do that on the basis either of balance of probabilities or even of simple suspicion. He will do it for reasons, and on evidence, that may not even be known to the British subject whose liberty is lost.

A further quote from the Law Lords, this time from Lord Rodger, highlights just how extraordinary that step is:

"The Government's assessment is . . . that it is not necessary to detain the British suspects in order to contain the threat that they pose. That is implicit in the entire policy that they adopted and emerges in any event from para 36 of the Home Office discussion paper on Counter-Terrorism Powers: Reconciling Security and Liberty in an Open Society issued in February 2004: 'While it would be possible to seek other powers to detain British citizens who may be involved in international terrorism it would be a very grave step. The Government believes that such draconian powers would be difficult to justify.'"

It should be noted that the Home Secretary told the Home Affairs Committee a few weeks ago that the terrorist threat has not materially changed in the last year, so presumably that comment is still true. He reinforced that point today with his comment that the security services do not believe that they need the full extent of the powers in the Bill at this point.

The question that has to be asked is: what is the immediate emergency that demands that draconian powers against British subjects be rushed through these Houses of Parliament without proper consideration, scrutiny or debate? What is the emergency that has arisen in the past 12 months that demands that, without proper debate, we give the Home Secretary the right to fetter the liberty of British subjects, from restricting their ability to communicate right up to and including house arrest? The only answer is, of course, the House of Lords' judgment. It is very clear from what I have quoted already that the Law Lords themselves did not envisage or encourage the proposals that the Home Secretary has put forward today.

Tomorrow, we will debate the details and principles of the Bill, but I want to raise one or two material concerns today. The first and most fundamental is the fact that the decision is to be made by the Home Secretary, not a court of law. The Home Secretary said that decisions that affect national security should be for a politician, not a judge, to make. That is a remarkable, novel and hazardous doctrine. Even in the second world war, when enemy spies threatened the lives of thousands, indeed hundreds of thousands, of soldiers and civilians, they were tried by a judge and jury under normal rules of evidence.

I have heard it said today that the power is designed to allow the Home Secretary to act quickly. The Home Secretary's proposals for the strongest powers, above the derogation level, require review by a judge within seven days, yet under laws passed by the Government the police are already allowed to detain a terrorist suspect for up to 14 days without charge. It is, therefore, possible to detain a suspect for seven days, to bring them before a judge and have the judge make the decision, without giving the Home Secretary those powers—so the Home Secretary is abandoning a key principle of British justice for no obvious practical advantage. That thread runs through the proposals—a willingness to abandon proven principles of British justice, with little proven advantage in addressing the security threat.

Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister apologised for the Guildford four decision. He made that apology about a decision taken in open court, with a judge and jury, with a standard of proof based on "beyond reasonable doubt", but which was still a miscarriage of justice. Conventional wisdom says that that miscarriage of justice was in part caused by the emotions in the aftermath of a terrorist outrage. What if a decision, using these powers, was taken by a Home Secretary in the aftermath of another terrorist attack? Under these proposals, a British citizen could be confined at the behest of the Home Secretary, on the balance of probabilities, on evidence never seen by the accused. What then would be the odds on a miscarriage of justice?

The Government have quite properly and laudably put into effect measures to prevent the radicalisation of some groups in our society. These proposed laws, and the sense of injustice that they could create, could completely negate those efforts, and could indeed act as a recruiting sergeant for the enemies of the state.

I reiterate: the Home Secretary does not have an easy task here and he has my sympathy in that regard, but there are better ways to achieve what he seeks. First, the House should have proper time to consider these proposals carefully. To that end, we are willing to support renewal of part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 for a limited period, specifically to allow time to get this right. The Home Secretary has said that he does not think that will work, which gives rise to the question of why, earlier this month, he laid the draft order for that renewal.

We are willing, for that limited period, to co-operate in primary legislation that limits the bail conditions that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission can allow, in effect guaranteeing that the control orders the Home Secretary is outlining in the Bill—up to and including house arrest—would apply to the remaining Belmarsh detainees until properly considered legislation came into effect. That would limit the possible injustice to a small number of people for a short and limited time, and would also give the Home Secretary the certainty he is seeking for foreign nationals.

Meanwhile, I ask the Home Secretary to give proper consideration to the proposals that all Opposition parties—and, indeed, members of his own party—have made to him: allowing the use of intercept evidence in court, along with all the other evidence that surveillance generates; the use of an investigating judge to marshal and vet evidence for the court, to protect the interests both of the security services and of the defendants; the creation of new offences, to which he alluded in his statement, such as that of "committing acts preparatory to terrorism", or offences based on American anti-racketeering laws that deal with the same sort of problems in that country; and practical options, such as significant increases in the resources available to the agencies for surveillance and other purposes.

All those proposals, and others, will receive a constructive response from the Opposition, if they are allowed proper time for consideration. Nobody is suggesting to the Home Secretary that we should wait for a terrorist outrage, but we must consider these matters properly. If, however, the Government insist on rushing these measures through, I fear that they may do the opposite of what they want. They will create a sense of injustice among many British citizens, and do what I warned when we first discussed this: for every known terrorist that the Home Secretary confines, he may create 10 unknown terrorists, free to do harm to our people and to our nation. That would be more than a mistake; it would be a tragedy.

I am afraid to say that the right hon. Gentleman has confirmed what I said at the beginning. He and his party are in the do-nothing camp—[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] Do nothing, first and foremost, about the Law Lords' judgment—saying that nothing should be done about the 8–1 judgment indicating that the existing legislation is both disproportionate and discriminatory. If the Law Lords say that we have discriminatory and disproportionate legislation, I believe that there is an obligation on the whole House, not simply on the Government, to address that, and that is what we are doing.

Secondly, on the point of substance, I indicated, and the right hon. Gentleman knows, that there are cases in which we cannot prosecute potentially extremely dangerous people, either because the material we have is inadmissible or because it cannot be used for fear of revealing and endangering sources and techniques. He knows that extremely well, but his proposition in those circumstances is explicitly to do nothing whatever about people who offer that threat. He has made it clear, as has the Leader of the Opposition, that they do not favour control orders as a device for dealing with the threat. They do not favour addressing the question directly at all. That is why it is fair to say that the right hon. Gentleman is not addressing the threat.

Thirdly, on the judicial point, I have indicated absolutely clearly, very explicitly, substantial judicial involvement in the decisions that the Home Secretary of the day will take, including, particularly at the level of deprivation of liberty, the ability of a judge to hold a full hearing, on the balance of probabilities, rapidly to consider the Home Secretary's decision. That is not the unvarnished decision of a politician; it is the decision of a Minister of the Crown accountable to the House, subject to detailed judicial confirmation in the fullest possible way, and it should not be portrayed as anything different from that.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman proposes renewing in the other place, and later in this place, the legislation that the Law Lords have struck down as discriminatory and disproportionate. As he knows, the fact is that were we to seek such renewal, and even were that renewal to be agreed by the House and elsewhere, despite the fact that that flew in the face of the overwhelming judgment of the Law Lords, for all the reasons that were stated, it would be entirely possible for the individuals concerned to appeal that Act to the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg directly in that time scale. Secondly, in that situation, it would be entirely possible for SIAC, when considering the case of the individuals currently in Belmarsh, to say that the position we had taken did not allow detention in those circumstances, despite the fact that the order had been renewed.

If we were to accept the right hon. Gentleman's advice, we would be establishing a regime that was uncertain and unsolid, and flew in the face of the Law Lords, for a period of three, four, five or six months while the Opposition made up their mind about what they wanted to do. Even at this point, I urge them to reflect again as parliamentarians on their responsibilities to this country and to our security, and to face up to those responsibilities rather than flying away from them.

I thank the Home Secretary for being so generous with his time and for giving us advance notice of his statement. I hope that he knows that over the past week the Liberal Democrats have genuinely tried to find a real solution for this complex issue. We acknowledge that the Government have moved some way in terms of strengthening judicial review, but the difference between us remains that the Home Secretary still considers that the judge should review his decisions, while we believe that it should be judges who take the decisions, not politicians. If he is prepared to let a judge overrule his decision, I do not understand why he is not prepared to let a judge take that decision in the first place.

Does the Home Secretary realise that if he were to apply to judges for the control orders he would, in our judgment, still be meeting his responsibilities as Home Secretary in terms of dealing with national security? Again, I ask him to reconsider his position on that issue.

Will the Home Secretary acknowledge that his current proposals are still based on "reasonable grounds"? Should not we be moving towards a higher burden of proof? Proof should be "beyond reasonable doubt" when it comes to removing the liberties of people in this country.

On intercepted communications, we disagree with the Home Secretary, but he previously said that he would leave the door open on the issue. I ask him today to go further than that: will he consider re-establishing the Newton committee to make specific proposals on how intercepted evidence could be used by the end of the year?

The Home Secretary suggested that a derogation will not be needed for control orders that do not involve house arrest, but is he aware of Liberty's legal advice that indicates that, in fact, a derogation would be required for any control order? What legal advice has he sought on that issue?

Finally, will the Home Secretary outline what his plans are if today's proposals are rejected by both Houses? Will he seek a renewal of the part 4 powers? If so, will he confirm what period he would require for that renewal? These judgments are all about the balance between the principles of justice and maintaining security. The proposals that the Government have outlined today get that balance wrong and that is why we cannot support them.

Let me first say that I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the approach that the Liberal Democrats have taken in the various conversations that we have had has been constructive, broadly speaking, in contrast to that of the Conservative party. Secondly, I accept that he and his colleagues have argued throughout that a judge, not a Minister such as the Home Secretary, should take these decisions in various areas. The reason why, ultimately, I do not agree is that the principle of Ministers' accountability to the House and Parliament is important, particularly in cases of national security, where the Government are charged with the responsibility of addressing those questions. However, I accept that there is a genuine difference of opinion about the way to address and deal with those questions, and I hope that he will pursue that as we consider the legislation as it goes through both Houses of Parliament. That is the right place to have exactly that discussion and conversation. We are imposing a higher burden of proof than was previously the case, both at the level below the deprivation of liberty and at the level above it.

I believe that the Intelligence and Security Committee will look at the intercepted evidence issues and I await with interest what it has to say on the matter, but I can tell the House that I have made my decision, although I have also said in my written statement to the House that I will keep the matter under review because, on the balance of judgment, my assessment is that to admit intercepted evidence would not assist in getting convictions. However, I am absolutely ready to keep that position under review, and, as I say, I look forward to what the Intelligence and Security Committee has to say in due course on the matter.

The legal advice that I have received is clear about the deprivation of liberty. There are always legal arguments that will proceed—we will simply see how that goes, as we move forward—but we are absolutely clear that there is a difference between, for example, some form of requirement to stay in a home or, for that matter, in a prison, and the idea of using an electronic tag or whatever. Those are qualitatively different in nature in so far as the deprivation of liberty is concerned.

On renewal, I do not anticipate being in the situation that the hon. Gentleman suggested.

May I bring to my right hon. Friend's attention the case of Abu Qatada, who is one of those detained in Belmarsh? I am sure that my right hon. Friend will remember that, the night before the detention powers came into effect, Abu Qatada gave the security services the slip and was on the run for some nine months before he was detained. He is widely believed to be one of the key al-Qaeda operatives in Europe. Can my right hon. Friend assure us that his new powers, if they are introduced, will be sufficient to control Abu Qatada if he is released from Belmarsh and put under the proposed regime?

First, I will not comment on individual cases. Secondly, I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. The advice that I have received from the security services and the police in relation to the individuals with whom we are currently concerned is that the control order regime at a level of less than the deprivation of liberty would be sufficient to secure those people, control them and prevent them from engaging in terrorist acts. I would not have made my recommendation on this matter unless there had been such a clear recommendation from the police and security services.

The right hon. Gentleman is suggesting serious restrictions on the liberty of the subject by Executive order. In exploring the risk of a miscarriage of justice based on suspicion, will he consult the Leader of the House? He will remember that the Leader of the House was brought to trial on a robbery charge in 1975. He was almost certainly framed and, in any event, he was acquitted, but there must have been reasonable suspicion or he would not have been brought to trial. Does that not emphasise the real dangers of taking away people's liberty based on suspicion? Surely we should accord the ordinary citizen the same protection that was accorded to the Leader of the House?

First, there is absolutely no comparison between the two cases. The fact is that we are talking in the legislation that I am introducing today about people suspected of terrorism—very serious events that require a different level of action from others. Secondly, I am explicitly proposing a level of judicial confirmation of the decisions that the Home Secretary takes that simply did not arise in the case that the right hon. and learned Gentleman identified.

My right hon. Friend will accept that Parliament has a duty to be vigilant on behalf of civil liberties, but surely we need to be hard-headed and not just romantic as we acquit ourselves of that duty. Does he accept that some of his critics ignore the fact that it is far from unprecedented for the Executive to curtail freedoms in a national emergency, that his present proposals are a great deal more limited, focused and subject to scrutiny than those of many previous Administrations, and that he cannot ignore the real threats that the nation faces, whether by allowing those who would perpetrate atrocities to go about their business or by dumping the proper responsibility as an elected Government on to the judges, when he has the primary responsibility?

I very much agree with my right hon. Friend. The historical examples are legion. I was reading the other day of the decisions taken by Abraham Lincoln when he was President of the United States of America in precisely this area. He was a great fighter for liberty and he justified exactly what we are doing on the basis of the need to defend liberty. I remind all Members that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. It is that vigilance against a real and substantial terrorist threat that it is my responsibility to carry through, and I will.

First, does the Home Secretary accept that we face no greater risk today from British citizens committing terrorist acts than we did before the House of Lords judgment? Does he therefore accept that he has made no case at all to explain why he comes here seeking greater powers than any Home Secretary in modern times has had over British citizens and greater powers than were ever sought by his predecessor, his Government or any other Government in modern times? Secondly, does he not accept that there is a huge gulf in principle between the Home Secretary having the authority to deprive the citizen of his liberty and then someone seeking judicial review and going before a judge to try to satisfy the judge that a mistake has been made, and the judge having the first responsibility? Surely it is practicable to devise safe, secure procedures of a confined, enclosed kind whereby the Home Secretary can go before a judge and satisfy someone who is independent, which is more important than answerability to the majority in the House, that it is right to deprive a citizen of his liberty.

I do not accept that accountability to the House is not an important constitutional principle. It is very important.

On the question of the judge, I will give the right hon. and learned Gentleman a word of clarification. I quote from the Bill that I shall introduce later today: the powers of the court on an appeal under this section include power to confirm the Secretary of State's decision,

"power to quash the order . . . power to quash one or more obligations imposed by the order . . . power to give directions to the Secretary of State for the revocation of the order or for the modification of the obligations it imposes".

Those are powerful powers for a judge to deal with and they are not simply a reserve for dealing with the situation.

My final point is that there is a gulf. It was marked on 11 September 2001 by the attack that al-Qaeda launched on the United States. The nature of international terrorism was transformed by that act and it led to a state of affairs that leads to a real and substantial threat to this country today. That real and substantial threat includes British citizens and not only citizens abroad. It is incumbent on me certainly, and I would argue on the whole House, to address that threat as robustly and effectively as we can, with the provisions for safeguards that are very much within the legislation carried through. The Law Lords' judgment is an important consideration in relation to the changes, but the fact is that the threat is evolving and constant, and it involves UK as well as non-UK citizens.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us understand the great difficulty of the decisions with which he wrestles? Will he in turn recognise that those of us with first-hand experience of dealing with secret intelligence have great difficulty in accepting that something suspected should be the basis for on which liberty is deprived? I therefore warmly welcome his saying that he does not currently require the powers of detention. That being the case, is not the obvious way forward for him to confine tomorrow's Bill to those measures that the police and security services have told him are sufficient for the present task and give us rather longer to find an agreed basis on which we can retain the principle that any decision to remove the liberty of the citizen should be taken in the first instance by the courts, not the Executive?

I do think that the intelligence issues to which my right hon. Friend referred initially, particularly on weapons of mass destruction and the Iraq situation, have led to concerns about the security services and the quality of their intelligence on various issues. There can be no hiding that obvious point and I have said so previously to the House and to Select Committees. That does not, however, lead me to conclude that there are no security issues or that we can pretend that there is no threat whatsoever. That is why I will publish later today the issues papers to which I referred earlier. I think that he will agree that there is a real and substantial threat to this country from international terrorism and that it is necessary to address and deal with it. The correct thing to do is to put in place a legislative framework that recognises that and gives us the means to address it. That is what my proposals today are designed to do.

In considering how to deal with this difficult problem, does the Home Secretary recognise that it has never been the basis of the rule of law in this country that the Executive decide and are accountable to Parliament for which individuals are locked up on the ground of criminality? That power has been imported from immigration legislation, which was the original basis of the decisions on the Belmarsh detainees. We would look very carefully at whether the Home Secretary had fulfilled his responsibility entirely if he put before a judge a recommendation on which the judge made the decision.

I recognise the role played by the right hon. Gentleman through his membership of the Intelligence and Security Committee. He has paid great attention to these issues, so I hope that he would agree that there is an issue of threat that needs to be addressed through legislation of this type. I accept, too, that accountability to Parliament is important, which is why a set of measures has been introduced indicating how that accountability will work.

Finally, I accept that there is a legitimate difference of opinion, which we have discussed before, about the relative roles of the judge and the Government Minister or the Home Secretary. That is not an unreasonable, wrong or ignoble difference, and we can debate it in Parliament just as it has been debated outside Parliament. The reason for my decision and my proposal is that the Home Secretary's Executive responsibility for the security of the country is a paramount issue and should be dealt with in that way. The right hon. Gentleman disagrees, and he is entitled to do so. Let us discuss that but, in doing so, we should not move away from the critical need for legislation of this type to address and provide controls over individuals who threaten our fundamental liberties.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Butler report showed it was not the intelligence about Iraq that was unreliable so much as its political interpretation, which distorted it and led to misinformed decisions? Understandably, he has stressed more than once today his view that his duty is to protect people in this country, but does he accept that that makes him unfit to interpret the intelligence? That job must be given to someone with independence, such as a judge, so that they can interpret intelligence and will not be attacked for doing so, as the Home Secretary would be, if there were an event.

I do not accept that interpretation of Lord Butler's report. I do not think that my right hon. Friend gave an accurate description of the report, so the premise on which she based her question is wrong.

Does the Home Secretary accept that this is yet another chapter, after the Civil Contingencies Bill, the identity cards saga and so on, that shows how authoritarian the Government have become? Does he also accept that, with respect to the problem of the Strasbourg Court, whatever legislation emerges—and I strongly support the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) that it could be introduced on a temporary basis—he could get round the difficulty that he described in relation to the European convention on human rights by prefacing it with the words "notwithstanding the Human Rights Act 1998". That would guarantee that our judges would have to give effect to that legislation as agreed by the political will of the House.

I am glad that at least the hon. Gentleman recognises the importance of the House, just as I have sought to do in the legislation. The judgment last December was made by UK Law Lords and the British legal system and not by an overseas court in a different area. It stated that the legislation under which people are held is flawed in the two important respects that I outlined earlier. I hope that he agrees that we need to repair that flaw or problem and create a robust system of legislation rather than, as his Front-Bench team seeks to do, simply ignore it and hope that it will go away.

As someone who strongly opposed the Government policy on identity cards, I for one recognise that there is an acute terrorist danger facing this country after 9/11, Madrid and Istanbul, so it is necessary for the Home Secretary to act decisively to protect our country and people. Although I will support the measure that will be laid before the House for reasons that I have just given, I hope nevertheless that the judicial aspect will be reconsidered in Committee, because it is important. I do not go along with everyone who has made criticisms today, but the court plays an essential role, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear that in mind.

I will very much bear that point in mind. I hope that, when my hon. Friend looks at the legislation in detail and sees the role proposed for the judiciary, he will acknowledge that I have done a great deal to meet the concern that he has raised both in the House and in private. I pay tribute to his hard-headedness. Speaking from his long experience in the House, he acknowledged the existence of terrorist organisations and the way in which they operate, which we need to address. He has always acknowledged, whatever the political divide, the state's obligation to defend itself against such organisations. That is what the Bill is about.

I welcome the Home Secretary's hard-hitting statement and I hope to goodness that he has a quiet word with his parliamentary colleague, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland before the next statement this afternoon. The Home Secretary's statement made it clear that control orders will be applicable to all suspected terrorists, irrespective of nationality and the type of terrorism. This week, the Irish Justice Minister, no less, confirmed that Mr. Martin McGuinness and Mr. Gerry Adams are members of the IRA army council, so can the Home Secretary confirm that control orders are applicable to those gentlemen?

First, I am not going to deal with individual cases. Secondly, I hope that I will not be criticised as craven for deferring to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on these matters. I can confirm, however, that the legislation creates a framework to deal with all forms of terrorism.

My right hon. Friend is right to emphasise that the nation faces a threat from terrorists and that these decisions are not easy, but the question of the balance between the roles of the judiciary and of the Executive is not trivial. The traditional checks and balances on the Executive have stemmed from the independence of the judiciary to make the primary decision. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look closely in the few hours that remain before Second Reading at whether he has got the balance right, as it is certainly a matter of concern for many Members on both sides of the House.

My hon. Friend is entirely correct to identify the balance between the judiciary and the Executive and between security and liberty. I have sought to address that and, in my statement of 26 January, I alluded to it directly. Particularly at the higher level of deprivation of liberty and derogation in that area, I believe that I am providing a process for judicial confirmation that allows judicial and court judgment at the very highest level when deciding the appropriate action to take.

As the Home Secretary's purpose seems to be to underline the proposition that the supreme law is the safety of the state, how can he reconcile the introduction of such severe measures with the continuation of privileges to Members of the House who are associated with terrorist organisations?

Again, I shall leave that to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

The nature of terrorism has changed and, within limits, our response must change too. Can my right hon. Friend explain the circumstances in which he would authorise an order for the detention of a suspect at home, subsequently endorsed by a judge? That would affect other members of the household. What opportunities would they have to challenge the restrictions that would ultimately be placed upon them?

First, I am grateful for my hon. Friend's acknowledgment of the fact, which needs to be given a greater hearing, that the nature of terrorism changes and that we need to change to deal with it. We cannot simply say that the situation that existed in the past is fixed. Secondly, everybody who is affected in those circumstances has the ability to take legal action to protect themselves, including other members of the family. That would be the right way to deal with any particular issue that arose.

The implication of the debate so far is that there has been no change in the security situation over the past month or so. The right hon. Gentleman said in his statement that he does not intend to seek a derogation at this stage. Bearing it in mind that these are the most draconian, far-reaching and potentially dangerous provisions put before the House in the past half-century, why do we need to rush the Bill through between now and Monday?

The short answer is the answer that I gave to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis). In the view of the Law Lords, the existing powers are discriminatory and not proportionate. That means, in my opinion, that if we were to continue with renewal, we would be vulnerable both as regards the individuals concerned in that case and, more profoundly, in relation to the Law Lords generally and the European Court in Strasbourg.

Prior to the opinions of the Law Lords on 18 December, no one in Government had suggested that it was in the interests of the state or necessary to enact legislation enabling Executive detention of British subjects without trial. When did it become necessary to introduce such legislation? Was it amazingly coincidental with their lordships' opinions, or had it arisen before that? If so, why were we not told about it?

No, the situation is as follows. On 11 September 2001, the threat that arose was from overseas nationals—the people who were involved in the attacks on that day. That is why the legislation was passed in 2001 to deal with it. Since that period, there has been a continuing involvement of UK nationals as well in that approach, and increasingly so. Before my time in my present office, the view was taken that, before considering how to deal with that situation, we should wait and see what the Law Lords judgment would be—rightly, I think—because it would be ridiculous to put legislation before the House while a Law Lords judgment was outstanding. As that case was going through the courts and finally to the Law Lords, the view was taken—in my opinion rightly, as I say—to await the Law Lords judgment. The Law Lords then gave their judgment, as my hon. and learned Friend knows. Their judgment was that the existing situation was discriminatory as between UK and non-UK citizens. That provoked the need to rectify the situation, as I seek to do today.

I absolutely accept that most of us who are in the Chamber today or who are Members of Parliament have no experience of intelligence matters or the assessments that inform them, but we can question the very fear that the Home Secretary exhibits, when no other common law country such as the United States has found it necessary to take the action that he is taking today. I ask him to reflect and tell us why he rejects the views of a former shadow Home Secretary, now the Prime Minister, who said that the liberty of the subject should be taken away not by the act of a politician, but by a court of law. That, he said, was a fundamental point about liberty, and it is what we are trying to weigh here today. It is the duty of the Home Secretary to demonstrate more openly why all this is necessary.

I accept the duty. Both in my statement to the House on 26 January and today, I acknowledged that there is an issue—an issue that the hon. Gentleman raises—of the right balance in these matters. I have not said that it is an open-and-shut situation. I have argued that there is a threat from international terrorism, with which we must deal. As I indicated in my statement, I shall publish later today a further set of documentation relating to the nature of that threat, how it operates and how we seek to prevent it. I say again, and it is a very important point, that the fact that we have not had a major terrorist outrage in this country since 9/11 is not a consequence of terrorist organisations not wishing to bring it about. In fact, they have sought to bring it about. However, our agencies have been able to prevent it, and for that we should pay tribute to their work. That guides our judgment as to what should be the legal regime to strengthen us in that regard.

First, we all understand the difficult situation the Home Secretary is in, but why is he so adamant that house arrest must be retained as an option when it is not used by any other Council of Europe country facing exactly the same terrorist threat as we do and when no other country has seen fit to derogate from the European convention on human rights for that reason or any other? Secondly, how can independent judicial scrutiny protect basic legal and fundamental human rights when the judge cannot reveal the secret intelligence to the suspect and therefore, crucially, cannot test the evidence that is alleged against the suspect?

On the latter point, my right hon. Friend's comments miss a key point: there are cases—I assure him there are—where there is not sufficient evidence to bring about a conviction in court, for a variety of reasons that I have listed to the House, but where the individuals concerned remain a threat to this country. It is possible to argue, as do those on the Opposition Front Bench, that we should do nothing in those cases, but it is not possible, in my view, to seek to defend the national security of the country without taking account of that. Finally, in terms of other comparisons, obviously there are entirely different judicial systems in the rest of the European Union. By the way, under those judicial systems, people are locked up in detention—not house arrest or anything of that kind, but in detention—for years and years. That is what those countries are doing.

Does the Home Secretary realise that this country is reluctant to entrust a Government who went to war on the basis of unfounded suspicion with a power to lock people up on the basis of mere suspicion? Can he confirm that he is under no legal obligation to change the law, since the Law Lords found his measures not unlawful, but simply incompatible with the European convention on human rights because they were disproportionate and discriminatory? Is it not barking mad to say that the remedy for disproportionate discrimination against a minority is to extend the same measures of harsh and disproportionate loss of freedom to the whole country? Does he realise that he is creating a precedent when there is no reason or justification for it?

First, I do not accept that it would have been appropriate to ignore the Law Lords judgment, as the right hon. Gentleman implied. It is not a good state of affairs when the Law Lords take one position and the Executive take another. We should try to bring matters on to a proper basis. I should have thought that that commanded general support across the House. On the second point that it is necessary to make in response to the right hon. Gentleman, I do not think—he will correct me if I am wrong—that he would argue that the issues around weapons of mass destruction in Iraq lead to the conclusion that there is no security issue here that needs to be addressed. There are security issues. If he is saying that no security assessment can be trusted, so no action should ever be taken, I cannot imagine a less responsible position for any politician to take.

It would be churlish not to recognise the very real steps that the Home Secretary has taken to bring in a judicial process at all levels and surround the power of derogation with strict controls. However, he seems to be arguing the importance of the Executive role as justification for not letting a judge take the decision. May I remind him that, under the old prevention of terrorism Acts, the exclusion orders, which in many respects were not dissimilar to what we are doing here, were profoundly unsatisfactory? If he can find a way of putting the matter before a judge, that would be helpful. Does he plan that the legislation will fall after a certain period, such as one Parliament, after which it will be renewed in another Parliament or envisage that it will be reviewed at some unspecified future date?

We propose a series of reviews over time. On derogation, I said that there is an annual review and not simply a review at the end of a Parliament. Perhaps I am not being clear enough. The judicial powers that I suggest for the Home Secretary's decisions in relation to deprivation of liberty are very substantial indeed. They are for a full court, and it is for a High Court judge to go through the whole case and assess on the balance of probabilities whether the Home Secretary's judgment was right. They will then have the power set out in the Bill to quash or modify the order if necessary, and even to direct the Secretary of State if necessary. I think that that is a very powerful situation that does not bear comparison with the historically correct point that my hon. Friend makes about the way in which prevention of terrorism legislation worked in the past.

rose—

Order.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on Northern Ireland.

I came to this House on 11 January to make a statement relating to the Northern bank robbery on 20 December. To recall the background, a highly organised and brutal gang kidnapped the families of two staff from the bank's headquarters in Belfast, threatening them with death unless the individuals co-operated in the execution of the largest robbery ever seen in these islands.

Since then, a major police investigation has been under way. As the House is aware, the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland made his conclusion clear that the Provisional IRA was responsible for the robbery. The Prime Minister and I have indicated that we accept the Chief Constable's judgment, which is also shared by the Irish Government and their security advisers. The Chief Constable's statement, seen in the context of other subsequent events, serves to reinforce the extent of the challenge that all of us face in working towards peace and stability in Northern Ireland.

Earlier this month, on 10 February, I laid before the House a copy of a report presented to the British and Irish Governments by the Independent Monitoring Commission. That report, which the commission had elected to produce in addition to its normal twice-yearly reports to the two Governments, concluded that the Northern bank robbery was planned and undertaken by the Provisional IRA and that this organisation was also responsible for three other major robberies during the course of 2004. I am very grateful to the members of the commission for their quick response to the very grave situation created by the robbery and its attribution.

The IMC concluded on the basis of its own careful scrutiny that Sinn Fein must bear its share of the responsibility for these incidents. It indicated that, had the Northern Ireland Assembly been sitting, it would have recommended that the full range of measures referred to in the relevant legislation be applied to Sinn Fein, including the exclusion of its members from holding ministerial office. In the context of suspension, it recommended that I should consider exercising the powers that I have to apply financial penalties to Sinn Fein.

The House will recall that following the IMC's first report in April last year, I issued a direction removing for a period of 12 months the block financial assistance paid to Assembly parties in respect of both Sinn Fein and the Progressive Unionist party. Having reflected on the IMC's latest report, I have concluded that it would be appropriate for me to issue a further direction removing Sinn Fein's entitlement to this block financial assistance for a further 12-month period, the maximum permitted under the legislation. I am therefore minded to make a further direction to come into effect on 29 April—the day after the existing direction expires. Before reaching a final decision, however, I will take into account any representations made to me by Sinn Fein by next Tuesday. I will make a decision on whether to extend the financial penalties imposed on the PUP last April when I receive the next IMC report covering all paramilitary groups, which is expected in April.

The commission's report also refers to other public money that Sinn Fein receives, although recommendations on this are outside its remit. In this context, I am conscious that hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised concerns in the past about the payment of financial allowances to the four Sinn Fein members who decline to take up their seats here. I hope that the House will welcome the opportunity to debate in the very near future a Government motion proposing that these allowances be suspended on a time scale in parallel with the arrangements at Stormont, in recognition of recent events. The debate on that motion is for another day, but I should emphasise to the House, lest anyone accuse us of denying the extent of Sinn Fein's electoral support, that the measures that we are proposing are designed to express the disapproval of all those who are committed to purely democratic politics of the actions of the Provisional IRA. All in this House recognise the degree of support for Sinn Fein, but we also believe that the actions of the republican movement are letting down everyone in Northern Ireland, including those who vote for Sinn Fein.

There are those who will argue that these financial sanctions are insufficient as a signal of the Government's and Parliament's condemnation of recent events. They may well argue that I should take steps to exclude Sinn Fein from the political process or from the Assembly now. I want to deal with those arguments directly, because they are sincerely made and with a strength of feeling that I understand.

The Government's ultimate goal remains the achievement of an inclusive power-sharing executive in Northern Ireland. I need not remind the House that the robbery has set back the time scale for achieving that, but the reality remains that long-term stability in Northern Ireland will not come about if we focus on exclusion. That objective requires inclusion; dialogue with Sinn Fein must continue in order to see how that long-term goal can be achieved. But I am clear that this must be inclusion on the basis of a complete and demonstrable commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means, that fundamental principle of the Good Friday agreement, enshrined in the pledge of office.

Had the robbery occurred while the Assembly was in operation, however, the decision about exclusion would have been very different. It is inconceivable, in my view, that members of Sinn Fein could again hold ministerial office while the issue of paramilitary activity and criminality on the part of the Provisional IRA remained unresolved.

The suggestion is made in some quarters that I should restore the Assembly, and then, if the Assembly itself failed to take action to exclude Sinn Fein, that I should take action myself using the powers available to me to exclude it. This would be very difficult in the absence of a clear plan that would see the parties in the Assembly come together on a cross-community basis to form a Government in Northern Ireland, but as I told the House on 11 January, I have not ruled anything in or out as we continue to assess possible ways forward for achieving greater local political accountability. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, if we cannot achieve a comprehensive settlement in the short term, we need to consider other ways forward.

In the meantime, our focus will remain strongly on dealing with the underlying issue of ongoing criminal activity in all its forms. The police investigation of the Northern bank robbery is the largest undertaken by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which is continuing to follow up every lead. This is inevitably an intensive and time-consuming process, and in parallel with this, I am taking the opportunity to ensure that our arrangements for tackling organised crime remain fit for purpose, and I have asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson), the Security Minister in Northern Ireland, to review the Organised Crime Task Force to see whether and how it might be strengthened.

We continue to have excellent co-operation at both a political and operational level with colleagues from the Republic of Ireland. Yesterday, I met Michael McDowell, the Republic of Ireland Justice Minister, for a regular bilateral meeting, along with the police chiefs from both jurisdictions. At that meeting, I was pleased to see the further strengthening of co-operation, when the Chief Constable and the Garda commissioner signed protocols to facilitate the movement of officers between both forces through personnel exchanges and secondments with policing powers. That development can only serve to strengthen the existing co-operation between the two police services in tackling terrorism and other crime.

Whatever our success in tackling criminality and paramilitary activity, the fact of the matter is that the commitment to peaceful and democratic means is not one that this Government need to make. As we said in the joint declaration of April 2003:

"ongoing paramilitary activity, sectarian violence and criminality masquerading as a political cause are all corrosive of the trust and confidence that are necessary to sustain a durable political process."

In the present context, it is, as the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach have both indicated, for Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA to do that. They need to step forward and tell us how they will demonstrate their full commitment to all the principles of the Good Friday agreement and how they intend to demonstrate to all the other parties in the political process, and to the people of Northern Ireland, that the kind of behaviour identified in the IMC report is in the past.

Financial penalties of the kind that I have described today may signify our strong disapproval of what has happened, but they will not of themselves rebuild the trust that is necessary if confidence is to be restored. That is a matter for the republican movement in general, and for Sinn Fein in particular.

As always, I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his customary courtesy in giving us advance knowledge of the contents of his statement.

The IMC report of 10 December could not have been clearer. It backed the opinion of both the British and Irish Governments, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Garda Siochana in attributing responsibility for the biggest bank robbery in British history and for other serious crimes to the Provisional IRA. The IMC went further:

"Sinn Féin must bear its share of responsibility for all the incidents . . . some of its"—

Sinn Fein's—

"senior members, who are also senior members of PIRA, were involved in sanctioning the series of robberies".

Does the Secretary of State share that grim assessment? Does he endorse the IMC's judgment that Sinn Fein leaders were personally responsible for those crimes? Does he agree with the Republic of Ireland's Defence Minister, who said at the weekend:

"We are no longer prepared to accept the farce that Sinn Fein and the IRA are separate. They are 'indivisible'"?

The Secretary of State will have noted Mr. Adams's remarks at the weekend, when he denied once again that republicans are involved in criminality. We know from the recent comments of Mr. Mitchel McLaughlin that the republican movement still decides for itself what constitutes a crime, in the bizarre belief that it constitutes the legitimate Government of the whole island of Ireland. Does the Secretary of State recall how republicans initially denied responsibility for the murder of Garda officer McCabe, for the abduction and murder of Mrs. Jean McConville, for the Enniskillen bombing and for a catalogue of murders and other violent crimes? In the light of that record, does he agree that we should treat Mr. Adams's weekend comments with utter disbelief?

We shall support the sanctions announced by the Secretary of State today. Those of us who have advocated the suspension of parliamentary allowances for some time are glad that the Government have come round to our point of view, but it should not have taken Ministers so long to acknowledge that their decision to grant those allowances was badly misjudged. There is no statutory limit on the period for which parliamentary allowances, rather than Assembly allowances, can be suspended, so why does the Secretary of State propose to restrict that period to 12 months only? Many hon. Members, particularly, but not only, on this side of the House, have consistently taken the view that Members who refuse to take their seats and accept responsibility for representing all their constituents should not be entitled to claim the allowances that go with the discharge of those responsibilities.

Will the Secretary of State say whether the Government's proposals mean that Sinn Fein MPs will still be entitled to offices at the Palace of Westminster and whether Sinn Fein MPs will still be able to give House of Commons passes to their staff, even if those staff salaries have to be met from Sinn Fein's alternative sources of funding?

The reality is that the inclusive, power-sharing devolution envisaged in the Belfast agreement is sadly no longer practical politics until the republican movement has clearly and permanently put an end to its involvement in crime and its paramilitary structure. Does the Secretary of State agree that direct rule is now set to last for years rather than months? Given that time scale, is it not time for the Government to end the effective veto that they appear to have given Sinn Fein over any political progress and to try to move forward with those parties that are committed to exclusively democratic and peaceful politics, so the people of Northern Ireland can get a greater say over the major public services on which they rely? Last autumn at Leeds castle, the Prime Minister said that if that attempt at a comprehensive settlement failed, the Government would look for a different way forward. He made a promise, and it is time for the Government to deliver on it.

Finally, the Secretary of State will be aware of the Irish Justice Minister's description of Sinn Fein-IRA as a "criminal conspiracy". In recent days, we have probably seen only the tip of a criminal underworld of mafia-type dimensions that threatens the rule of law in both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. I warmly welcome yesterday's announcement of enhanced co-operation between the PSNI and the Garda, and I wholeheartedly support the efforts of the Secretary of State and Justice Minister Michael McDowell to strengthen the effort by the two Governments to combat organised crime in both jurisdictions. Will the Secretary of State give the House an absolute guarantee that the police and all other agencies will have his and the entire Government's unreserved support in their efforts to root out paramilitary crime, and that there will be no holding back in that effort wherever or to whomever those investigations might lead?

On the final point, the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that the Government will expend all their attention and effort on making sure that we root out organised crime in Northern Ireland, not only in the republican movement but elsewhere. Yesterday's co-operation at Hillsborough is important, because it is the best example for many years of co-operation in dealing with criminality.

The hon. Gentleman asked a series of questions about the political process in Northern Ireland. I am not in a position to say that direct rule will go on for years, which is not something that I want to happen—far from it. The people of Northern Ireland deserve their own Government and Assembly and to run their own affairs. To that end, different political parties and others in Northern Ireland make suggestions that the Government must examine carefully. However, if there is to be local Administration—whatever form it takes—it cannot happen without cross-community agreement about how it occurs. That depends especially on the SDLP's position and views on the matter.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the IMC and referred to the link between Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA. I have no reason to disbelieve the IMC report. We have always maintained that Sinn Fein and the IRA are inextricably linked and part of the same movement. Yesterday, the Taoiseach described them as two sides of the same coin. The Government believe that that is exactly the case.

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise what constitutes crime and criminality. In answer to a question that he posed at Northern Ireland questions, I believe that the idea that individual parties can define what they believe crime and criminality to be is preposterous. The Government share his view on the definition of crime and criminality. We will root out paramilitary activity and criminality, wherever it might be, in Northern Ireland.

The Organised Crime Task Force, to which I referred earlier, takes into account all the agencies in Northern Ireland, such as the Assets Recovery Agency, the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise, the police and Departments, all working together to ensure that, at whatever level and wherever it may happen, criminality is rooted out and tackled.

I do not intend to waste much time on financial penalties. We opposed them in the negotiations before the joint declaration. We spoke against them in the House of Commons when the legislation that set up the Independent Monitoring Commission was considered and we will do so again today. The IRA and Sinn Fein thrive on victimhood and grievances. The House should not facilitate that by handing them any more.

On a matter of substance, the Secretary of State may recall that in the IMC debate on 17 September 2003, I repeatedly asked why "organised crime" was omitted from the list of activities that article 4 of the draft agreement and paragraph 17 of the joint declaration specified. I did not get an answer. I shall try again. Why have not the two Governments specifically included "organised crime" as one of the issues to be monitored in the legislation that set up the IMC, in the joint declaration of 2003 or in the so-called comprehensive agreement of 2004? When the Secretary of State answers that question—I hope I will get an answer this time—will he speculate on the effect it might have had on recent events if the two Governments had made it clear on those three occasions that organised crime was to be targeted in the same way as other matters?

I understand my hon. Friend's position on sanctions, but the time has come for the House of Commons and the Government to show their disapproval, especially of the events of past weeks. However, I agree that the onus and emphasis in any debate on such matters should be on the criminality and the criminal activity of the IRA. He rightly says that he has pressed that on more than one occasion, in Hillsborough and in the Chamber.

Earlier, I quoted from paragraph 12 of the joint declaration of April 2003. It states that

"ongoing paramilitary activity, sectarian violence and criminality masquerading as a political cause are all corrosive of the trust and the confidence that are necessary to sustain a durable political process."

Paragraph 13 referred to, for example, so-called punishment beatings, which are criminal activities. All add up to a collapse of trust and confidence among parties in Northern Ireland. Paragraph 17 also refers to such activities.

However, I stress to my hon. Friend that today is an opportunity for the House of Commons to express its disapproval of what has occurred and also for us to reflect on the fact that only way in which we can make progress is through the end of criminality in all its forms.

I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement and our constructive meeting this morning. As he knows, I have become increasingly frustrated because, despite eight years of Liberal Democrat support for the peace initiative, the Government have regularly not involved us and other Opposition parties on many issues at key stages of the process. I acknowledge that he and his fellow Ministers have gone some way towards rectifying that.

Given the gravity of today's statement, will the Secretary of State share evidence that shows that the IRA carried out the Northern bank robbery, at least with my party leader, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), on Privy Council terms? I do not understand why that would not be possible.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Irish Government, Lord Alderdice, the IMC, the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Government share the view that the IRA was responsible for the Northern bank robbery? Does he have evidence to suggest that paramilitaries, specifically the IRA, have been involved in other serious breaches of law and order in the Province, for example, by protecting the killers of Mr. Robert McCartney from justice, and that they are responsible for a catalogue of other criminal activities in previous months? If he can prove and connect those breaches with the IRA, we will consider the sanctions sympathetically. However, I personally feel sad that it has come to that, given the unquestionable contribution that Sinn Fein has made to the peace process on many occasions.

Will the sanctions affect only allowances? The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) also asked that question. Will Sinn Fein Members of Parliament still be entitled to use their offices? Will their staff be entitled to retain their passes?

Paragraph 13 of the joint declaration was mentioned. Does the Secretary of State regard it as the true touchstone for what is expected from the IRA and, indeed, Sinn Fein, if the sanctions are to be lifted? I emphasise that paragraph 13 covers criminality in all its forms and is therefore a clear statement of what is expected.

Should not we distinguish between the lawless behaviour of republican paramilitaries and the rights and interests of the Catholic community in the north of Ireland? Does the Secretary of State agree that we must recognise that nationalism and republicanism are legitimate political viewpoints, whether one agrees with them or not? In that context, does he accept that, even with the sanctions, Liberal Democrats will try to continue to work with representatives of those communities, including Sinn Fein representatives? Will he give an assurance that, notwithstanding the sanctions, he and the Government remain committed to working with Sinn Fein and other parties in the interests of peace?

On the last point, I said in the statement that we intend to continue to talk to all parties in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that nationalists and republicans have every right to express their political point of view democratically. However, it is not legitimate for paramilitary activities or criminality to be linked to such parties. That is the difference.

The hon. Gentleman referred to paramilitary activity in all its forms. He will recall that, when discussions were held between parties before Christmas, criminality formed an important part of any agreement that was to have been finalised. I failed to mention that in an earlier answer.

I share the hon. Gentleman's sadness on this occasion. I feel no joy or pleasure in coming to the House to make today's statement—far from it. Everybody who has been involved in the past few years in trying to bring political stability and peace to Northern Ireland will experience no joy at today's statement. However, we must accept the reality of the current position.

On sanctions, the resolution that the Government will present to the Chamber deals with Sinn Fein Members' allowances. Hon. Members will have an opportunity to discuss the detail when the debate takes place on the Floor of the House soon.

I take the hon. Gentleman's point about briefing his party leader. I shall discuss that with the Chief Constable.

Will my right hon. Friend look at the total finances of Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA with a view to extending mainland provisions on the monitoring and control of the funding of political parties to Northern Ireland? Will he also ensure that the Assets Recovery Agency directs its attention to Sinn Fein, the Provisional IRA and various individuals? That can be done on an all-Ireland basis because the legislation on which the Assets Recovery Agency is based was taken from legislation in the Republic of Ireland.

I understand my hon. Friend's point about the funding of political parties. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State is dealing with the Irish Government on that matter. Dealing with party funding generally on the whole island of Ireland, and ascertaining where their income comes from, is obviously an important issue. I take great account of the point about the Assets Recovery Agency. Part of the discussion that I had yesterday with the Justice Minister and the Garda commissioner related to how the agency in Northern Ireland could work with its counterpart in the Republic of Ireland, the Criminal Assets Bureau.

May I put it on record that the law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland are greatly insulted by the attitude taken by IRA-Sinn Fein over these recent events? The Secretary of State said at the end of his statement today that IRA-Sinn Fein

"need to step forward and tell us how they will demonstrate their full commitment to all the principles of the Good Friday agreement and how they intend to demonstrate to all the other parties in the political process, and to the people of Northern Ireland, that the kind of behaviour identified in the IMC report is in the past."

We have listened to nothing else but apologies from IRA-Sinn Fein, and every person who has raised their voice for equity, decency and law-abiding principles has been maligned and lied about by the IRA-Sinn Fein leaders. The law-abiding people of Northern Ireland are sick of these insults. The leaders of IRA-Sinn Fein have stepped forward, and they have lied about the things that were brought to their attention. All that they could do was to malign the people who brought the charges. The time has surely come for this Government and this House to set their own affairs in order, and to say that there is no place in a democracy for armed terrorists and their campaign of crime against the decent citizens of Northern Ireland.

The Minister of Defence in the south of Ireland has said plainly that two of the people in question are in the army council. If that is so—and I believe that it is; these charges were made long ago by those of us who come from Northern Ireland—this House should rid itself completely of those who are in the IRA or any other terrorist organisation. They should not have membership of this House. I trust that, when the Bill comes before the House, we shall have the opportunity to deal fully with these matters. Those people should not receive any money from the House, and they should be stripped of their privileges here. The time has come for stern, straight action to deal with this matter, and until it is dealt with, there cannot be proper, democratic rule in Northern Ireland. I am disgusted with the attitude of the Liberal Democrats here—

Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to pose a question to the Secretary of State.

My question is: why should I not, as an Ulsterman, denounce the Liberal Democrats for apologising for IRA murderers—bloody murderers?

I shall keep out of that one, I think. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I could not agree more with his first point about the ordinary people of Northern Ireland who are decent, law-abiding citizens, whether they be nationalist or Unionist. Today must be a huge disappointment to those people in Northern Ireland who have taken great strides in the development of cross-community reconciliation, both in economic and social terms. I think that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to agree that every city, town and village in Northern Ireland has great examples of development and progress that many of us would have believed impossible many years ago. What we are having to discuss today is in many ways a slap in the face for the people who are making that progress. I also agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need demonstrable evidence of change. That is where the IMC comes in. Of course, I also agree that there is no place for armed terrorists in a democracy.

The Minister said in his statement that the Government's objective was to have an "inclusive power-sharing Executive" in Northern Ireland, and that the test for such inclusion was a "demonstrable commitment to non-violence" and non-criminality. Does this mean that the Provisional IRA, which the Government state is indistinguishable from Sinn Fein, must decommission, de-structure and decriminalise before such an Executive can be set up? That appears to have been the intention of the joint declaration of April 2003, to which the Secretary of State has referred. Yet the Government were willing to ignore criminality as recently as up to 8 December, in spite of the knowledge of three major robberies attributed to the IRA and of other criminal activity. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether this is a permanent change of Government policy?

My hon. Friend will understand, because he was deeply involved in the negotiations in the run-up to the signing of the Good Friday agreement, that the idea of an inclusive Executive—based, as it must be, on non-violent, peaceful and democratic means—was the objective of everyone in Ireland, north and south. That is what people voted for. The problem that we now face is that decommissioning has not happened in the way in which we all thought that it should, over a period of just two years, as we agreed.

My hon. Friend is also right about criminality. In 1998, everyone thought that there would be a transitional period in which there would be a withering away, as it were, of criminality and all the other activities that paramilitaries get up to. However, the reality is that the robbery of the Northern bank and other activities show that it has not gone away. Unless we address that issue, the trust necessary to restore the Executive will never be there. We must therefore emphasise to the Provisional IRA—and, indeed, to loyalist groups—that, unless criminality is abandoned, we shall not make any progress towards the political stability that we want in Northern Ireland.

We will, of course, support the sanctions that the Secretary of State has mentioned, but I have to say to him that he could have, and should have, gone much further. Perhaps he recalls the then Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), saying at the Dispatch Box on behalf of the Government in September 2003 that

"we envisage no circumstances in which we would not exercise the power"—

that is, the power to exclude from an Executive—

"in a manner consistent with the IMC recommendations."—[Official Report, 17 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 982.]

Yet all that is saving Sinn Fein from exclusion from office in an Assembly now is the Government's decision to continue suspension. I regard that as a failure to comply with that undertaking, and I urge the Secretary of State to look again at the matter.

Does the Secretary of State also realise that his failure to act on this matter reinforces the suspicion that all that the Government want to do is to let a little time pass by before they reheat the DUP-Sinn Fein deal of last December? He must realise that that will not work. It probably would not have worked then, and it certainly will not work now. It is possible to establish a cross-community Executive, but not one including the republican movement. Consequently, if he will not recall the Assembly, we are left with the only realistic course, which is to try to democratise direct rule as soon as possible.

On that last point, I am sure that there is a lot of opportunity for debate on what democratising direct rule would mean. The earlier point represents the right hon. Gentleman's view, which he has held very sincerely over the last couple of weeks in particular, that there should an end to the suspension, that the Assembly should be recalled and that an attempt should be made, having excluded Sinn Fein, to set up a cross-community Executive. If I thought that was workable, I would think there was some merit in the point, but, as he knows, there must be cross-community support on that particular issue. Obviously, work has to be done with regard to that matter.

As I said in my statement, we are not going to rule anything out or anything in. We must not have closed minds to any particular suggestions, because, whatever happens, it seems to me, direct rule is the worst of all options. There should be an attempt to plug that democratic deficit in whatever the best way possible. We will continue to consider different options in that respect.

May I welcome in particular the part of my right hon. Friend's statement that sets out further strengthening of the Garda in the Republic and of the Northern Ireland police, especially as this phase can be brought to an end only when the perpetrators of the Northern bank robbery, and indeed of the recent murder in west Belfast, are identified, brought to trial and put behind bars? As the evidence for who those people are almost certainly rests with the Sinn Fein political party and the republican communities, is it not time for the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister to make it absolutely clear that now, any elected representative in either state will be expected to co-operate with the police in either country to bring those criminals to justice and put them behind bars? Is it not time to insist that elected political representatives take their full responsibility within their communities and do not pick and choose, saying, "We can manage to avoid co-operating with the police against criminality"?

On co-operation, my hon. Friend is right on two counts. The first is the question of co-operation between the two police services. It has never been better, and there was evidence for that yesterday in the signing of the protocols at Hillsborough castle. The success of the different police investigations over the last few weeks is also evidence of that close co-operation. Secondly, she is of course right that everybody in Northern Ireland, whatever their political or religious background, should be co-operating with the police to find the perpetrators of murder and of robbery.

The Secretary of State might have read the line in this morning's Irish Independent:

"Perhaps the only thing the Provos do better than knee-capping, drug-dealing and gutting people from navel to sternum is wounded indignation".

He mentioned his meeting yesterday with Michael McDowell, the Irish Justice Minister, who has been unequivocal in saying that Sinn Fein and the IRA are the same organisation, and has named their leadership as Adams, McGuinness and the Irish Sinn Fein TD Martin Ferris.

In the context of the fact that five men were jailed in Dublin yesterday simply for membership of the IRA, can the Secretary of State tell us what the Home Secretary meant when, during the earlier statement, he answered several questions about the application of his prevention of terrorism measures to Northern Ireland by saying that he would defer to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who was about to make his statement?

I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I was not here and that I did not hear that statement, but I will discuss those matters with my right hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman is also right to point out again the linkage between Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA. That is why we are in the Chamber today, dealing with the issues that we have to deal with.

Is membership of this House compatible with membership of the army council? If not, what action does the Secretary of State propose to take against those individuals who have a dual mandate?

Any action against individuals on membership of illegal organisations is obviously a matter for the police. The Chief Constable will deal with any illegality.

And the House?

As far as the House is concerned, that is a matter for the House itself. It will have an opportunity to debate those issues in a couple of weeks when the Government table their motion.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the comprehensive agreement, unlike the previous dispensation under the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), which allowed Sinn Fein to be in government while it continued its criminal enterprises and terrorist activities, required of Sinn Fein-IRA that they decommission all their weapons verifiably and transparently, that they end all criminal and paramilitary activity before ever being in government, and that there would be a testing period so that the assessment could be made as to whether that was indeed so?

Does the Secretary of State stand by the man whom he said in his statement he has some admiration for—the Justice Minister of the Irish Republic—who clearly, with the same information at his disposal as the Secretary of State, named Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and Martin Ferris as members of the IRA army council? Does not the Secretary of State fear naming those people in those positions because of the impact that that would have on the Government's policy of inclusivity? Does he not accept that many people in Northern Ireland are somewhat embarrassed that there is more robust action from the Government of the Irish Republic than from our own Government?

In terms of the financial penalties that the Government are considering, will they consider also the fact that this Government regulate payments to the European Parliament and whether Sinn Fein's MEP should be punished in like manner? Will they also look at those who are in local government and the benefits they accrue?

I probably have enough on my plate at the moment so far as our own Parliament is concerned, and it is obviously a matter for the European Parliament how it deals with some of those issues. That is also the case for local government. Today, we are dealing with what the House itself can deal with. If the hon. Gentleman feels that there is a possibility of raising the issues involving the European Parliament, he may have the option to do so, if the rules permit, when we debate those matters in several weeks' time.

I agree entirely with the Justice Minister about the linkage between Sinn Fein and the IRA. I also agree with the hon. Gentleman that the agreement we were negotiating before Christmas laid great emphasis on ensuring that we dealt with the issue of criminality and that we dealt also with the testing period between the time of the agreement and when it would come into force. However, I also have to say that no Member from any party in the House would disagree with my saying that we must emphasise the fact that criminality is at the root of our problems at the moment.

All of us in the House wish the PSNI and the Garda Siochana every success in bringing those responsible for these terrible crimes to justice. We look forward to the evidence being presented to the House. Does my right hon. Friend share the legitimate concerns of those of us who worry that invoking financial penalties and making links with individuals in the House at the same time as we are talking about those crimes only adds to the press and media speculation that there was a personal involvement linking Members of the House to those crimes? Will he take this opportunity to say whether he agrees or disagrees with the statement from the Justice Minister, Michael McDowell, that Members of this House are members of an illegal organisation?

In terms of the penalties, because the Assembly is not up and running at the moment, effectively the only thing that we can do is deal with the allowances and the position of Sinn Fein Members of the House. That is a matter for the House to decide. I have already made my point about the linkage between Sinn Fein and the IRA, but although we have had to discuss the question of sanctions, as that is the nature of today's statement, it is important that we never lose sight of the issue that has brought about those sanctions, which is criminal activity, whether robbing banks of £26.5 million or shooting young men in our cities in Northern Ireland through their hands, ankles or knees. Any form of such activity must stop. Unless it does, as I said earlier, any sort of inclusive Executive is simply impossible. It is important to bear that point in mind.

Does the Secretary of State realise how absurd it is that tomorrow, when this House debates the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuinness could be entertaining friends within the precincts, spending the profits of their recent ill-gotten gains and discussing the bloody murders that they have committed in the past? Cannot he express an opinion on that?

Yes, I have already expressed the opinion that, as far as we are concerned, the criminality that surrounds paramilitary activity, which culminated in the robbery of the bank—I have referred to other criminal activities, too—has resulted in today's statement. That statement has reported that the Government will give the House the opportunity to end all the allowances for Sinn Fein, as far as that affects the House, and that we will support that decision.

And access?

That is a matter for the House to consider in some weeks' time. The fact that the Government have given the House that opportunity speaks for itself.

But why will the Government not include in the motion to stop the allowances paid to Sinn Fein Members the further provision that they should not be here at all? Is not it absolute nonsense that we are discussing anti-terrorism activity and security in the House, and yet democratically elected Members are expected to walk around and bump into people whom Michael McDowell from the Republic of Ireland has said are members of the army council? Does the Secretary of State agree with Michael McDowell that Gerry Adams and the other member of Sinn Fein-IRA who was mentioned are members of the army council?

I have indicated more than once in the House that I believe that there are absolute linkages between the IRA and Sinn Fein at all levels. My hon. Friend might also have heard me say in the media today that I do not intend to talk about individuals or individual cases in the House. [Hon. Members: "Why?"] For all sorts of reasons, including the fact that the Chief Constable must deal with certain issues and that it is an intelligence matter. I also hope that Members will understand that I believe strongly that this is a matter of great public interest in Northern Ireland. That also means that members of the republican movement in Northern Ireland have a duty to be able to convince people that they are not. We and the Irish Government, however, are absolutely at one in seeing no distinction within the republican movement between the IRA and Sinn Fein.

I welcome the debate in the House to discuss privileges. Although many of us feel, emotionally, that we want to punish those involved in criminality, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will vote to restore equality in relation to membership of the House, so that if one does not come here and swear or affirm allegiance, one does not become a special grade of MP. It is time that we restored equality for all Members of the House.

I am confused: IRA-Sinn Fein are responsible for the biggest bank robbery in history. The Secretary of State is advised that Martin McGuinness, the chief negotiator, and the president are members of the army council. He knows that the rest of the army council of the IRA includes Slab Murphy, the finance director, Ferris and the rest. Can he explain to the House why there has been not one arrest or interview by detectives within the PSNI or the Garda Siochana of any member of the army council of the Provisional IRA, or not one serious investigation by the Assets Recovery Agency into the illegal financing of a political party that will give it an unfair electoral advantage, in a few months' time, in the Westminster and local government elections, against the rest of us who must obey the law and adhere to the rulings of the Electoral Commission in this country?

First, in terms of the opportunity that will exist in the House in some weeks' time, the hon. Gentleman, and any Member of the House, will be in a position to express the point of view that he just did in the context of a debate. I am sure that he will do so. In terms of people being arrested or interviewed, obviously, that is not a matter for me as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland but a matter for the police. On the Assets Recovery Agency, I said earlier in relation to the Organised Crime Task Force that the Assets Recovery Agency plays a vital part in dealing with organised crime, and I take the point that he makes.

rose—

Order. We must move on.