---

Column 404

who directs any activity, whether criminal or non-criminal, within a body such as the Animal Liberation Front could be exposed to life imprisonment. We felt that was perhaps a little too draconian. If we are to have a penalty of this nature, it is appropriate that it be more narrowly focused. We tabled the amendments to put our position on record and I hope that the Government will consider the matter further.

Dr. Mawhinney : Several important amendments have been tabled to the clause, and several hon. Members have spoken to them. I will do my best to meet the standard that I set myself at the beginning of the proceedings to be as concise as possible but to do justice to the arguments made.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) does not like clause 27. He did not like it in Committee, and he does not like it today. He has the virtue of consistency and we all admire him for that. I like clause 27. We have the same consistency and it seems that we shall have difficulty in achieving a meeting of minds on the subject. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider the ordinary, common-sense meaning of this simple clause. A significant feature of all the amendments is that they focus on individual words. Clause 27 is short and needs to be taken in the round. The word "directing" has its ordinary common-sense meaning. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North does not like the word "direct"--he wants it to be defined--but if the House defined "direct" the courts would still have to reach a judgment about what the words meant. It seems much better that they should have to interpret a simple sentence with its common-sense meaning rather than complicated definitions of the word "direct", which they would still have to interpret. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has looked up the definition in the Concise Oxford Dictionary. The meaning of the word "direct" is clear and straightforward.

Amendment No. 1 is designed to remove the phrase "at any level". I advise the House that that phrase was included deliberately in the provision. Indeed, the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) acknowledged that I made that clear in Committee. The phrase was included to make it clear that anyone who directs the activities of one of the organisations, whether at headquarters, regional or local level, is equally open to prosecution.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North suggested that the clause was not necessary because those involved in terrorist organisations could always be got for something else. But some of them cannot be got for something else. That is precisely why the clause has been inserted in the Bill.

As I said in Committee, the expression "at any level" was chosen to give specific recognition to the types of structure that terrorist organisations adopt. I am slightly surprised at the hon. Member for Upper Bann. I should have thought that, with his knowledge, he would have recognised that the structures of terrorist organisations gave the phrase "at any level" genuine meaning. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North has never accepted that concept, either in Committee or today, but I should have thought that the hon. Member for Upper Bann would recognise it.

---

Column 405

Mr. Trimble : Perhaps in my haste to make progress I passed over that point when I should have dealt with it in detail. I remember the points that the Minister made in Committee. He referred to cell-like structures, and so on. I formed the opinion then--and I am still of the opinion now--that the Bill would catch people directing cells of terrorist organisations if it simply used the phrase "directing the activities". I believe that "at any level" is still too wide.

Mr. Mawhinney : I thank the hon. Gentleman for explaining his view. I am afraid that we shall have to agree to disagree. It is gratifying that he recognises that there are structures which make the inclusion of the words "at any level" arguably defensible, even if he is not persuaded by the argument.

As the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said, the purpose of amendment No. 11 is to narrow the scope of the offence. It would apply to those directing the criminal activities of organisations concerned in the commission of acts of terrorism. Of course, I accept that in certain circumstances some of the activities of terrorist organisations may not be overtly criminal--that is to say, they may not, in themselves, be breaches of the criminal law. For example, activities which may be directed by a person holding the position of quartermaster may not in themselves be criminal activities. It is not a criminal offence to purchase or acquire items such as gloves, balaclavas, overalls, two-way radios or walkie- talkies. On the other hand, we can have no doubt about the purpose behind the quartermaster's direction that such items should be acquired. I therefore suggest to the House that it is right that those against whom there is evidence of the direction of such activities, even when those activities may not in themselves be unlawful, should be open to prosecution.

With regard to amendments Nos. 2 and 3, it may interest the hon. Member for Upper Bann to know that when the clause was being drafted our initial inclination--in line with the hon. Gentleman's own thinking--was to define the offence in terms of proscribed organisations. Clearly, it was--and is-- our expectation that, in practice, it is against the leaders of those organisations which are currently proscribed, at whatever level, that the offence will be used. It became apparent, however, that there could be potential complications in using that definition. As hon. Members will recall, clause 28(3) empowers the Secretary of State to add to the list of proscribed organisations

"any organisation that appears to him to be concerned in terrorism or in promoting or encouraging it."

The use of the definition "proscribed organisation" for this offence would have opened up the theoretical possibility that those who might be directing the activities of organisations which had been proscribed only for promoting or encouraging terrorism, rather than because they were concerned in terrorism, would be open to prosecution for this serious offence. That is not a situation that we wish to see arise.

I see difficulties also in respect of amendment No. 3. It is clear that, as the amendment is drafted, the offence applies to anyone involved in directing the activities of terrorist organisations without seeking to put limits on the types of activities concerned. The point here is that every organisation is composed to some extent of different groups with different specialisations. In addition to those who actually plan and carry out acts of terrorism, there are

---

Column 406

those who perform other functions such as intelligence-gathering, recruitment and quartermastering which are vital to the existence of the organisations. It is therefore right that those responsible for those various functions should be subject to prosecution for the offence if there is evidence of their directing role, although in individual cases that role may well not be such as to justify the maximum penalty.

Mr. Trimble : I understand what the Minister is saying about activities other than those of a directly terrorist nature--gathering information, for instance--but he must realise that the cooks and bottlewashers are included.

Mr. Mawhinney : If cooks and bottlewashers are members of terrorist organisations, it is possible that we are gathering them in. Amendment No. 3, however, appears to limit the application of the offence solely to those directing the activities of these organisations with regard to actual acts of terrorism. Not only would that represent an unacceptable narrowing of the offence, but it would place an additional heavy burden on the prosecution to demonstrate that that was precisely the suspect's role within the organisation's command.

The purpose of amendment No. 12 is straightforward--it would reduce the maximum penalty for the offence from life imprisonment to 10 years. The Government cannot support that amendment. As hon. Members know, the offence is aimed at those who direct the activities of terrorist organisations, and it simply would not be credible for those in control of such organisations to be subject to a lesser maximum penalty than their subordinates. Rank and file members of those organisations are liable to sentences of life imprisonment where serious offences are committed, and it is right that those who are responsible for directing such activities should be subject to no less a penalty.

The purpose of Government amendment No. 33 is to add the offence in clause 27 to the list of scheduled offences in schedule 1. It would clearly be inappropriate for the offence to be dealt with before juries, and the amendment will ensure that cases will be dealt with in accordance with the procedures in part I of the Bill.

For all those reasons, I invite the House to resist amendments Nos. 6, 1, 11, 2, 3 and 12, but to accept Government amendment No. 33. 12.30 am

Mr. McNamara : It is not my intention to keep the House long, but the Minister of State has confirmed the point that we made earlier--he is boxed in by his own propaganda. He accused me of being consistent. On this issue, I am consistently right and he is consistently wrong and has dug a big pit for himself. He started by saying that everyone knew what "directing" meant. I asked him what he meant, and he replied that it would be foolish to define it. The Bill contains clauses that consist of nothing but definitions, so everything will be defined except the major new offence.

The Minister said that we needed the new offence because there would be occasions when the people involved would not otherwise be, to use his charming and immortal word, "got". He did not give an example of what he meant, but he then said that he had thought of one and talked about quartermasters who, when sending out

---

Column 407

people to collect items such as balaclavas and two-way radios, would be directing. They would be caught under clause 30 on obtaining possession of items intended for terrorist purposes.

The Minister gave a list of other examples. He rightly said that it would be wrong for people who direct terrorism to be given more lenient prison sentences than those who carry out the crimes. But there are offences, including being an accessory to a crime and conspiracy, that cover every example given by the Minister. Someone felt that the Government had to appear to be tough. The proposal is nothing but an emotional spasm, and we should get rid of it. Question put, That the amendment be made :--

The House divided : Ayes 18, Noes 123.

Division No. 91] [12.32 am

AYES

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Canavan, Dennis

Corbyn, Jeremy

Cryer, Bob

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Dixon, Don

Foster, Derek

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Lewis, Terry

McGrady, Eddie

McNamara, Kevin

Mallon, Seamus

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Meale, Alan

Nellist, Dave

Skinner, Dennis

Strang, Gavin

Turner, Dennis

Tellers for the Ayes :

Mr. Frank Haynes and

Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

NOES

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Amess, David

Amos, Alan

Arbuthnot, James

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Ashby, David

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Beggs, Roy

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Brazier, Julian

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Chapman, Sydney

Chope, Christopher

Cope, Rt Hon John

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Day, Stephen

Fallon, Michael

Favell, Tony

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Forth, Eric

Franks, Cecil

Freeman, Roger

Gale, Roger

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Goodlad, Alastair

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Gregory, Conal

Hague, William

Hannam, John

Harris, David

Hawkins, Christopher

Hayes, Jerry

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Hunter, Andrew

Irvine, Michael

Janman, Tim

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Kilfedder, James

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Kirkwood, Archy

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Knowles, Michael

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Lord, Michael

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

McCrea, Rev William

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Maclean, David

McLoughlin, Patrick

Malins, Humfrey

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Miller, Sir Hal

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Mitchell, Sir David

Moate, Roger

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Monro, Sir Hector

Morrison, Sir Charles

Mudd, David

Needham, Richard

Neubert, Sir Michael

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Norris, Steve

Paice, James

Paisley, Rev Ian

Patnick, Irvine

Pawsey, James

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

---