---

Mr. Dykes: Presumably my hon. Friend was not suggesting--I am sure that he will correct my wrong impression--that the European convention on human rights would encourage the perpetration of conspiratorial acts in this country. As he is aware, there is a growing body of opinion in this country, covering people of all parties and none, in favour of incorporating the convention into United Kingdom domestic law in whatever appropriate form can be achieved.

Mr. Merchant: In a sense, I was insinuating that the convention could encourage the perpetration of

31 Jan 1997 : Column 606

conspiratorial acts, although I accept that that is not the intention of the European Commission of Human Rights--at least I assume it is not. To answer my hon. Friend, I shall quote from the "Inquiry Into Legislation Against Terrorism". Paragraph 12.15 says:

"In the Commission's view this"--

in other words, the certain right to asylum--

"represents an absolute guarantee of protection which may not be removed even if the alien represents a threat to the host country's national security."

That means our national security, let alone that of other countries. The paragraph continues:

"member states may not derogate from their obligations . . . If there is evidence that a person is involved in terrorism, the Commission argues, he should be prosecuted under the criminal laws of the host country."

In other words, if an asylum seeker comes here, his right as an asylum seeker is absolute and the only way, according to that interpretation, in which action can be taken is via our own laws. That is a powerful reason why the Bill is necessary.

I have so far referred to terrorism, and combating it must be the main purpose of the Bill. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) rightly said, the Bill's scope is wider than that and it can deal with other crime. I have in mind particularly international drugs-related crime, fraud and football hooliganism.

Mr. Kirkhope: My hon. Friend referred, quite rightly, to the protection that might be offered to refugees. I am sure that he is aware of the United Nations declaration that was adopted on 17 December last. It made it clear that those who engaged in terrorist acts, including the planning, funding or inciting of them, were acting contrary to the principles of the United Nations and would, therefore, forgo the protection that would normally be available to those seeking refugee status.

Mr. Merchant: Yes, I was aware of that declaration. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and his colleagues for their assiduity in pursuing the issue. It was a British-led initiative that led to the change in the United Nations definition. To what extent that new definition will lie alongside the interpretation of the European Commission of Human Rights remains to be seen. That is one of the reasons why I raised that dichotomy.

As I started to say, many other crimes will be swept into the compass of the Bill, and rightly so. There are crimes that need to be dealt with on an international basis and the Bill will enable us to do our part in that. That is a substantial change in our jurisdiction and makes the Bill far more than just a minor measure.

Last year, I spoke at various stages during the passage of the Sexual Offences (Conspiracy and Incitement) Act 1996. There were considerable arguments in the House about jurisdiction and to what extent it was fair and right for us to alter our concept of jurisdiction by extending it--as the Bill does. I am glad that so far, that question has not been raised today. It seems that the House has come round to accepting almost universally that there is a need to extend our jurisdiction.

I very much welcome the Bill; it will be a firm drive against terrorism and other international crimes. I wish it a hasty passage to the statute book and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne on promoting it.

31 Jan 1997 : Column 607

11.58 am

Mr. Peter Butler (Milton Keynes, North-East): I shall start with the point on which my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) concluded, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on his skill in securing fourth place in the ballot and invite him at a suitable private occasion to explain to me how he did it. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), who has now returned to the Chamber, on his perspicacity in drawing up his report on the international treatment of maritime fraud. It is always a pleasure to congratulate a member of the Conservative Whips Office on every possible occasion and I do so, if possible, even more strongly than my colleagues have done.

We have to consider whether the mischief that the Bill seeks to address is sufficient to justify--as the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) pointed out--a restrictionon what otherwise might be considered morally acceptable behaviour in certain limited circumstances. We have always to check any proposal for new criminal law against the mischief test and decide whether the mischief is sufficiently serious to justify the inevitable restriction on individual liberties. As is evidenced by my signature on the original Bill, and my presence in the Chamber today, I believe that in this case the mischief is extreme and more than sufficient to justify the proposed restrictions.

I shall not deal with sexual offences, as they have already been addressed separately and exhaustively, but I should like to mention two other matters. The first is organised crime. The hon. Member for Swansea, East and I served--under the chairmanship of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), who is in his place--on the Home Affairs Committee that conducted an inquiry into organised crime. We were all shaken to have our impression that it was a serious matter not just confirmed but expanded. It is a terribly serious problem to which the law enforcement agencies in countries around the world--both friendly and unfriendly in political terms--have yet to find a solution. Anything that brings us a step closer to a solution must pass the mischief test.

The second issue to which the Bill will most usefully be applied is terrorism, which has been much discussed this morning. It would be naive to ask whether terrorism exists; the real question is whether it is served by activity in Britain that does not fall foul of our criminal law, but would do after the passage of the Bill. Again, the answer is yes, but the matter is worth considering.

Several reports have already been mentioned, and I shall refer to them again. For example, on 25 October 1995, an article in The Times ran:

"Pamphlets circulating in London mosques are calling for the shooting of Westerners in Algeria, the kidnapping and murder of government officials, the hijacking of planes and the sabotage of peace talks to end the civil war . . . The pamphlets in Arabic are outspoken in inciting violence and assassination. 'Hold a stone, trigger a bomb, plant a mine, hijack a plane, do not ask how . . . Do something to prove that on your shoulders there stands a head, not a piece of cheese. The times of kidnapping are not over yet, do something.'"

One may find the idiomatic English somewhat strange, but the message is appalling in its clarity.

The article continued:

"For the past two years newspapers have been distributed in mosques and among Britain's Muslim community boasting about the number of Westerners killed and of the ambushes and actions against Algerian military forces . . .

31 Jan 1997 : Column 608

The Algerian Government claims that because Britain's asylum laws do not proscribe political activity as long as it does not break British law"--

that goes straight to the point--

"dissident exiles are flocking to London to take advantage of the good communications and large number of Arab newspapers published here . . . Britain has become a centre for subversion, and diplomats are urging Britain to prosecute anyone plotting terrorism and assassination."

One could not have a clearer exposition of the background to the measure, but I would not wish it to be thought that the problem involved only one country.

I refer to a report in The Guardian--unusual for me--in November 1995, which refers to Egypt. It states:

"Jihad leaders living in Britain had helped instruct 36 militants who are now under arrest. These suspects allegedly planned suicide attacks on Ministers, politicians, policemen and journalists, and received instruction from other senior figures living in Switzerland and Austria."

The article named the two in Britain. One has already been granted political asylum. It continues:

"These men used codenames, disguises and forged documents to facilitate their life abroad".

Hon. Members have referred to the problems in Algeria, and attacks planned by people living in Britain, being carried out in France by Algerians directed, encouraged and incited by people living in Britain.

We have heard that, in Hansard on 6 December 1995, at column 252, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), gave a commitment to look into the matter and do something about it. I shall return to that in a moment.

A report in The Sunday Telegraph on 17 March 1996 stated:

"The Government will come under renewed pressure from Israel this week to act against Islamic fanatics who use Britain as a base to plan and support terrorist attacks."

It referred to the speech by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the summit of peacemakers in Egypt in which he

"called on world leaders to crack down on dissidents who 'abuse the hospitality and protection' of their adopted countries."

The Sunday Telegraph goes on to comment:

"The Prime Minister no doubt had in mind Dr. Mohammed al-Masari, the relatively benign"--

I emphasise the paper's view of "relatively benign"--

"Saudi dissident who upset the Riyadh authorities by sending a stream of faxes from London calling for the peaceful overthrow of Saudi Arabia's ruling family."

I shall return to that particular gentleman in a moment.

A magazine published in London says:

"This is your time, the time for heroism and to merit dying a martyr's death. This is the time for holy war and martyrdom. You must take your place of honour in martyrdom and not among the weak regime of Yasser Arafat."

Most of us recall Mr. Yasser Arafat as the progenitor--indeed the inventor--of much of what we now consider international terrorism.

31 Jan 1997 : Column 609

In March, The Observer reported that the London-based leader of a group whose name translates as "The Emigrants" told the paper

"that it was the sacred duty of all Muslims to back the jihad against Israel and other 'occupied territories', such as the Indian state of Kashmir.


He said secret organisations to tap funds and recruit fighters for 'international brigades' were already well established in Britain, and one of his party's principal aims was to garner further support."

Such articles are simply a cross-section of a vast body of available public reports of the sort of problem that is the main and very proper target of the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne touched on the legal problems. He referred to Treacy v. Director of Public Prosecutions and Lord Diplock saying that the basis of the general rule was international comity, which leans against English courts punishing those who did something in another country that has no harmful consequences in England.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne also referred to Board of Trade v. Owen, as have others, where it was thought that Lord Tucker had left a door slightly open. Another test would be that the performance of the conspiracy in the country abroad would produce a public mischief in this country or injure a person here by causing him damage--albeit the damage was abroad. Unfortunately, the Court of Appeal slammed that door very firmly shut, leaving us for about 15 years with a significant problem. In exemplary fashion, the Bill seeks to solve that legal difficulty.

The Government approach to the matter has been frustrated by other legal decisions, and by an attitude on the rights of asylum seekers which often runs contrary to the rights of citizens and the right to safety of citizens in other countries around the world. The main principle applied in such cases is whether to extradite or prosecute here. It has normally been accepted that extradition to the country where the offence was carried out, subject to various safeguards, is the first choice.

Difficulties arise when we consider the principles that are applied before extradition is granted. There are many, but I shall refer to the four main ones. First, there is dual criminality, of which we have heard much in this debate: the offence must be an offence in this country and in the country to which the party is to be extradited. Secondly, there is the speciality law: we would extradite only for prosecution for the specific offence on which extradition papers were drawn and on which extradition was granted. Thirdly, there is the sentence test: the offence must attract a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment or more in both this country and the country to which the extradition is taking place. That is a minimal principle that is not included in the Bill.

Fourthly, and the principle that has caused most difficulty, is the political offence exemption. It has become a major problem due to its interpretation, which has held that unlawful killing--indeed, terrorist acts short of that--can be exempt such that the person charged with carrying them out shall not be extradited if they were deemed to be politically motivated. Apparently, that can be so even where the act could, would or has resulted in indiscriminate unlawful killing from, for example, the planting of bombs and other such activities. In my view, that legal

31 Jan 1997 : Column 610

interpretation of the political offence exemption is outrageous, wrong and should have been reversed some years ago. It is an instance of the difficulties that Governments of whatever colour have occasionally--sometimes consistently--had with the judges.

---