House of Commons Hansard Debates for 31 Jan 1997 (pt 3)

9.59 am

Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East): I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on his good fortune and on introducing a Bill that will deal, as he said, with the international scourge of world terrorism and other offenders who besmirch the name of this country, such as those who call themselves football supporters and commit substantive offences abroad. The hon. Gentleman's Bill carries on a tradition of development of our statute law and our common law, and it has received the endorsement of an intergovernmental working party and the inquiry into legislation against terrorism chaired by Lord Lloyd of Berwick.

My first reaction to the Bill was that it was like peace, motherhood and apple pie. Who could oppose such a worthy measure? I then read the list of sponsors, and noticed that they were all drawn from the Conservative party. That raised the question why, if the Bill were wholly non-partisan and non-controversial, the hon.

31 Jan 1997 : Column 582

Member for Eastbourne had not endeavoured to obtain wider backing. That was a little signal which perhaps made me look more carefully at it.

Mr. Waterson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so that I may clarify the position. I asked some Opposition Members to become sponsors and they took the reasonable view that they wanted to see a draft of the Bill before committing themselves. I have some support from the hon. Gentleman's colleagues and I expressed my thanks to them in my speech.

Mr. Anderson: I accept that explanation, but the lack of Opposition sponsors still raises some questions. I do not oppose the Bill as such, but I intend to respond to the hon. Gentleman's invitation to debate the issue of international terrorism and to raise questions that trouble me. I hope that those questions will also trouble others who consider the Bill and have to tackle this increasing problem in today's world.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin (Colchester, North): I may be at risk of making a party point--although I merely follow the hon. Gentleman's lead when he made a party distinction about the sponsors of the Bill--but it seems to me that any reluctance to sponsor a Bill designed to crack down on terrorism is entirely consistent with the views of some of the IRA sympathisers on the Opposition Benches and the Opposition's regular opposition to the prevention of terrorism Acts.

Mr. Anderson: That was a wholly disgraceful intervention. My party has acted in a bipartisan way on Northern Ireland, as have the Liberal Democrats. If the hon. Gentleman wants to enter the election season already by calling us weak on terrorism, he may do so, but he is demeaning the House and himself.

Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth): That was a petty, nasty and objectionable intervention from the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), and it was out of kilter with the Prime Minister's remarks only yesterday, when he referred to the consensual support that he has received from the Opposition on Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend is right to say that the hon. Gentleman's intervention is not worthy of comment: it was contemptible.

Mr. Anderson: It was also out of spirit with the reasonable speech made by the hon. Member for Eastbourne, and I am sure that he would repudiate it in the Corridors. The hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) has obviously been busy reading that well-known American book, "How to influence people without making friends", in preparation for the election.

Mr. Peter Butler (Milton Keynes, North-East): To assist the hon. Gentleman in making friends, may I ask him to glance down the list of sponsors, which includes my name, and concede that they are of high quality even if they are all Conservatives?

Mr. Anderson: Having served with the hon. Gentleman on the Home Affairs Committee, I have no doubt about his deep interest in the subject and I am sure that his contribution will be wholly reasonable. Given that

31 Jan 1997 : Column 583

we are in an election season and jibes are being traded across the Floor, this is not perhaps the best time to consider matters of such importance reasonably and dispassionately. I probably agree with the hon. Member for Eastbourne and his Bill. All I am seeking to do is to suggest that it might contain some dangers. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, in the reasonable spirit in which he introduced the Bill, will consider those aspects that trouble me.

Perhaps during an election season, human rights become a naughty thought. I believe that the Bill might have dangerous implications for human rights, although I recognise of course that it seeks to deal with a real problem, caused in part by the mobility of international terrorists and the way in which many seek to abuse our long traditions of hospitality. Lord Lloyd, in his report, quoted Lord Griffiths:

"in this century crime has ceased to be largely local in origin and effect. Crime is now established on an international scale, and the common law must face this new reality."

We as legislators must face that fact.

We must also consider the political sensitivities of some of our ethnic minorities, who feel that their countrymen are being oppressed. One thinks of the Kashmiris and others. Those political sensitivities add a new dimension to our consideration of the Bill. How should we respond? The problems are illustrated in the newspapers. The Observer on 10 March 1996 quoted Hamas as saying:

"we use London as a base for terrorism and source of funds".

A further example is Dr. al-Masari, who shelters under this country's protection and appeared to sympathise with his countrymen who blew up the United States installation in Saudi Arabia.

Mr. Richard Alexander (Newark): I do not wish to make a party point, but the case of Dr. al-Masari is an important example. I shall refer to it shortly, if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Dr. al-Masari's comments should not only fall within the legislation, but deprive him of any right to asylum in this country?

Mr. Anderson: That may be one effect of the moves that have just been agreed at the United Nations--I am not sure whether the new UN agreement is retrospective. I certainly share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the activities of Dr. al-Masari and would need to consider carefully whether, because of his conduct, he deserves to be here. We may come to a different conclusion when we study the relevant facts.

Swansea is affected, as is shown by an article in The Sunday Times of 11 June 1993, headed:

"World Trade Center bombing suspect 'stole' identity of Swansea student."

That shows that international crime knows no frontiers; our law has to be adapted to respond.

I recognise the pressures on the Government from a number of countries--for example, the anger in France at the way Algerian terrorists who carry out atrocities in Paris and elsewhere have found safe refuge in this country. Another example was the pressure on the Prime Minister at the summit meeting with Arab heads of state recently in Sharm el Sheikh. I share that anger and

31 Jan 1997 : Column 584

understand that there is legitimate concern, and I accept that there should be a debate on how best to tackle the problem.

Clause 1 relates to conspiracy, and clause 2 to incitement. Under the Bill, various hurdles or conditions have to be satisfied before a prosecution can be mounted in this country. For example, the fourth condition, in proposed new section 1A(5), is that

"a party to the agreement, or a party's agent, did anything in England and Wales in relation to the agreement before its formation".

I would need to consider carefully the nature of agency in the criminal law and the case law on the subject. It might be difficult to tie the words of an agent and the full authority of an agent to someone in this country. In the case of rape, although not, I concede, in the case of conspiracy, the case law on "participation" is long. It shows how the test of "participation" must be satisfied, for example in the case of Clarkson, and in others.

Proposed new section 1A(11) states:

"Any act done by means of a message (however communicated) is to be treated for the purposes of the fourth condition as done in England and Wales".

On the face of it, a "message" of support for those intending to undertake some criminal action in a third country could be treated as a satisfying condition. I wonder whether that goes too far. There is a similar provision about a "message" in clause 2, which relates to incitement. Obviously we can look more carefully at the ambit of the Bill in Committee.