| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I am not aware of that comment, but I am sure that the UK Government are not thinking in those terms. The UK Government fully supported the agreement at the World Summit in September that such action would be taken only if the criteria that I mentioned earlier were adhered to.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, why is Zimbabwe not on the agenda for the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, bearing in mind that, when the apartheid regime of South Africa withdrew from the Commonwealth, as Zimbabwe has done, Africa was always on the agenda? Could it be because members of the Commonwealth would be embarrassed at how little the Commonwealth has done to help relieve the suffering of the people of Zimbabwe?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, as my noble friend the Leader of the House explained fully in our
21 Nov 2005 : Column 1383
debate on the Commonwealth last week, Zimbabwe is not on the agenda for the next CHOGM because it was so fully debated at the previous meeting.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the noble Baroness made any representations to the Food and Agriculture Organisation about the bizarre spectacle of Mr Mugabe haranguing the recent anniversary meeting when he was responsible for what the FAO described as an acute crisis in which 5 million people needed food aid? Even if they were obliged to admit Mr Mugabe under the rubric that requires UN agencies to allow ministers to attend their meetings, why did the Italians granted a visa to Mrs Grace Mugabe. Cannot representations be made to the Italian authorities about that?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, such behaviour is utterly irrational and is sadly to be expected from those people. As the noble Lord will know there are targeted sanctions from the EU to certain people travelling but those targeted sanctions do have exemptions and that enabled them to travel.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, in response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, I should like to make clear that the action I was proposing was to have been within the Security Council. I was not suggesting anything else.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I note that and I beg the noble Baroness's pardon.
Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, before we start the Second Reading of the Terrorism Bill, which is the next but one item on the agenda, I would like to advise noble Lords about timing for the debate. There are 47 speakers and we have a target rising time of ten o'clock, so the advice to Back Benchers is that speeches of around seven minutes will meet the time. Also, the note we put on each speaker's list is a reminder of the courtesies of the House but also an injunction about the people who feel that they are unable to stay until the end. The little reminder, which does no harm, says,
"Members who become aware in advance that they are unlikely to be able to stay until the end of the debate should remove their names from the list of speakers".
Consumer Credit Bill
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:—
Schedule 1
21 Nov 2005 : Column 1384
Clause 71.—(Lord McKenzie of Luton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Terrorism Bill
3.6 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
No one can doubt the threat to our society posed by terrorism, particularly international terrorism. The list of terrorist atrocities around the world is long and many of the names are all too familiar: New York, Nairobi, Sharm el-Sheikh, Bali—tragically twice—Madrid and even in the period since the Bill was introduced in another place, there have been attacks in Amman and Karachi.
Many of these attacks took place prior to the military action in Iraq and have continued since without abatement. This summer London was added to the list of places which have been attacked. I do not propose to dwell on the attacks of July because all of your Lordships will be familiar with those terrible events and because there are still ongoing investigations and prosecutions.
Those attacks demonstrated that the threat we face is real and deadly. We cannot afford any complacency in our response. We must ensure that our anti-terrorism legislation is as comprehensive and up-to-date as possible. The international nature of terrorism means we must look internationally in our response and I am pleased to say that one of the important purposes of this Bill is to enable the United Kingdom to ratify two important international conventions.
Perhaps I could begin by outlining the way in which the Government have approached this matter. We have said all along that in a matter as important as this we want to proceed by consensus. As I am sure your Lordships will have seen from the reports of proceedings in the other place, there has not been a complete meeting of minds. Nevertheless, it is important that we do not let the fact that there are still some areas of disagreement overshadow the fact that much of the Bill commands cross-party support.
I am gratified that the Bill received an unopposed Third Reading in another place and I pay tribute to the opposition parties for their willingness to engage constructively. I am sure that there are points which we will debate vigorously in your Lordships' House but I hope we can continue to work in a spirit of consensus.
It might be helpful if I were briefly to say something about the history of the Bill. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary made a commitment to
21 Nov 2005 : Column 1385
bring forward further counter-terrorism legislation earlier this year during the passage of the Bill which became the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.
Preparations for the Bill were already well under way in early July of this year, and on 15 July my right honourable friend sent out to the opposition spokesmen a list of measures that we proposed to include in the Bill. I am grateful to them for the positive response they were able to give. We also made it clear that we were consulting the police and intelligence agencies in the light of the attacks and would consider whether additional measures were required.
My right honourable friend agreed with the principal opposition spokesmen at that time that we would dispense with formal pre-legislative scrutiny but that nevertheless, in the time available, we would engage in as much consultation as possible. Accordingly, we sent out the draft Bill to the opposition and relevant parliamentary committee chairs on 15 September. In the light of the helpful comments we received, we wrote again on 6 October, setting out some revised proposals in respect of the offence of glorification.
It is also worth recording that both the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place and the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which some of your Lordships serve, have taken evidence about the Bill.
The Bill was introduced in another place on 26 October. Although, by cross-party agreement, it had an accelerated passage through the House, it is important to stress that it was subject to very full scrutiny there. The Committee stage, unusually, took place on the Floor of the House so that all Members could participate. The Report stage was extended by the Government to allow extra time for debate and, again unusually, there was a full Third Reading debate. There were also plenty of Divisions in the other place so what we have before us is a Bill that has been properly considered and represents the will of another place.
The Bill has stimulated huge interest and controversy. It has rigorously been scrutinised by the other place as a result, and properly so.
So much for the Bill's history. I should like to say a little about its content. Part 1 contains several new offences, the first of which is the offence of encouragement to terrorism, also known as indirect incitement. It is already an offence under our law directly to incite people to commit specific terrorist acts. We now want to be able to deal with those who incite terrorism more obliquely but who nevertheless contribute to creating a climate in which impressionable people might believe that terrorism was acceptable.
In another place there was lengthy debate on the question of intent and, as a consequence, the Government brought forward amendments. The Bill now provides that a person commits an offence if he or she makes a statement and intends that members of the audience should regard it as an inducement to commit
21 Nov 2005 : Column 1386
terrorist acts or is reckless as to that possibility. This will, among other things, enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism, the first of the two international conventions which I referred to earlier.
The Bill extends the provisions to those who disseminate terrorist material, including on the Internet, but makes it clear that those who simply transmit material which does not reflect their views will not be caught.
The encouragement offence also includes glorification. Again, this was the subject of much debate in another place. It is, I am sure, something that your Lordships will want to discuss in some detail. So on this occasion I will simply confine my remarks to reminding your Lordships that the creation of an offence of glorification of terrorism was an explicit commitment in the manifesto on which the Labour Party fought the 2005 general election, in which we said:
"So we will introduce new laws to help catch and convict those involved in helping to plan terrorist activity and who glorify or condone acts of terror".
The Bill creates a new offence of acts preparatory to terrorism, a matter which has been discussed in this House on a number of occasions.
This was well trailed and has hitherto commanded all-party support, as I trust it will in your Lordships' House.
The Bill deals with training for terrorism and makes it an offence to give or receive training for terrorist purposes and to attend a terrorist training camp. I am sure your Lordships will see why these measures are necessary.
The Bill contains the necessary measures to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Suppression of Nuclear Terrorism, the second of the two conventions. The changes which the UK requires to comply with this convention are relatively minor, but it is important that we act quickly in order to set an example to the rest of the world.
The Bill also extends the offence of criminal trespass to civil nuclear sites. I am sure the House will understand the desirability of such sites as targets for terrorists and why they need the maximum possible protection.
The Bill increases the penalties for certain terrorist-related offences to reflect the gravity of the offences which we are dealing with. All prosecutions for offences in Part 1 require the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions; any offences involving the affairs of another country also require the consent of the Attorney-General.
I will say a few words about extra-territorial jurisdiction as it featured prominently in the debates in another place. There was concern that extra-territorial jurisdiction, for which the Bill originally provided, went too wide. The Government have responded to that concern. Accordingly, the Government brought forward amendments in another place to limit the
21 Nov 2005 : Column 1387
extra-territorial application of the new offences effectively to the extent required by the two conventions.
Part 2 of the Bill makes two changes in respect of proscription.
Proscription is an important part of our armoury in the fight against terrorism and I am grateful that your Lordships recently endorsed the order to proscribe an additional 15 organisations.
The Bill widens the criteria for proscription to encompass those groups which glorify terrorism, where it is reasonable to expect that such glorification will be seen by others as an inducement to emulate the terrorist acts in question. Given that we are creating a new incitement offence, it makes sense for the proscription criteria to mirror it.
The other change is to allow us to deal, by order, with proscribed groups which change their name. It clearly cannot be desirable for a proscribed group to seek to evade the consequences of proscription simply by changing its name.
The next item in the Bill, pre-charge detention, has attracted the greatest attention. The Government, acting on the clear professional advice of the police, believe that the maximum pre-charge detention period in terrorist cases should be 90 days. The reasons for this have been repeatedly set out by Ministers and by the police—most notably by Assistant Commissioner Hayman, the country's most senior anti-terrorist police officer.
The Members of another place, as is their absolute right, rejected the advice of the police and the Government and chose to set the maximum limit at 28 days. As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said, the Government accept the decision taken by the House. We will not seek to overturn it in another place—that other place is your Lordships' House.
I understand that a number of your Lordships are minded to table amendments—if this matter came to Committee stage—to set the maximum limit at 90 days. I must tell your Lordships, on behalf of the Government, that that is not an amendment which we could now support.
If such an amendment were so laid and pressed to a Division, on behalf of the Government, I would abstain. My Back-Bench colleagues would make their own individual judgments on the matter.
It may be worth highlighting the other changes made to the Bill in respect of pre-charge detention. We have provided that all extensions beyond 14 days—all extensions—will be authorised by a High Court judge—or, in Scotland, a judge of the Court of Session. Up to 14 days, the consent of a district judge will, as now, be required. Authorisation will be on a weekly basis, though the judge will have discretion to grant shorter periods if the circumstances warrant it. At the behest of the other place, the Bill also includes a sunset clause. The power to hold people for up to 28 days
21 Nov 2005 : Column 1388
prior to charge in terrorist cases will lapse and the limit will revert to 14 days unless there is an annual renewal vote in both Houses of Parliament.
The rest of Part 2 contains mostly technical measures, including improvements to stop-and-search procedures and our warranty provisions. Again, we are very grateful for the support that we have received from the Opposition in respect of those measures. The Bill also makes a small change to the definition of terrorism, simply to bring threats against international bodies such as the United Nations within the scope of the definition. Beyond that, the Bill uses the tried-and-tested definition of terrorism. However, concern on that point was expressed in another place. Various amendments to provide new definitions were tabled but none was without problems or drawbacks.
The Government do not believe that a better definition could be easily created but recognise that there is genuine concern on the point. Accordingly, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has invited the independent reviewer of our terrorism legislation, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, to carry out a review of the definition of terrorism. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, who is in his place, for agreeing to undertake the task. He has said that he will consult widely in carrying out his review and will report within one year of commencement of the Act. My right honourable friend has committed to laying his report before Parliament. He has also said that we will provide Parliament with an opportunity to debate and take a view on his conclusions. If consensus is achieved on a change to the existing definition, we would commit to bringing forward that change as soon as parliamentary time would allow.
Part 3 contains the normal miscellaneous supplemental provisions. I should draw attention to Clause 35, which provides for an independent reviewer to be appointed to report on the operation of this legislation as well as the Terrorism Act 2000. That role is currently performed by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and I am sure that all noble Lords will appreciate the care and attention that he brings to his role. He is noted for his independence of thought, so noble Lords may be interested in what he has said about the Bill. At paragraph 111 of the report published on 12 October this year he said:
"I regard the current proposals as providing a set of useful and necessary additions to the law to counter terrorism".
No one can doubt the threat that we face from international terrorism. The challenge to us is to devise a legislative response that meets that threat while at the same time safeguarding our vital civil liberties. We are satisfied that the Bill meets that test, and I therefore commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
3.24 pm
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |