| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Donald Anderson: I am reminded of the problems in the American courts with the definition of political offence and its application to members of the IRA.
Mr. Butler: As always, the hon. Gentleman's contribution is exactly to the point. Earlier, he set out the moral quandary and suggested that we might consider absorbing it into the criminal law. He asked how we might feel if that moral quandary was imported into the law in other countries which then refused to do anything about murders and killings in Northern Ireland. I invite him to consider the point he has just made in his intervention in connection with his earlier remarks.
There are other legal problems. Unwillingly, but necessarily, I return to the subject of Dr. al-Masari. The attempts to stop his entry into Dominica were an interesting run through the judicial attitude to the Home Secretary's attempts to keep this country and other friendly states safe from terrorism. On the third day of Dr. al-Masari's appeal against deportation, a Mr. John O'Connor, a former Scotland Yard flying squad commander and now a security consultant, gave what is described as evidence. He said that he had visited the island to compile a security assessment and that
The Independent on Sunday, on 24 March, reported a statement by Mr. Nick Hardwick, the chief executive of the Refugee Council:
The hon. Member for Swansea, East asked whether support meant incitement--was Dr. al-Masari's conduct support or incitement? It is a narrow line to draw. Many of us know cases, for example under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1936, in which it has been held that simply remaining in the area watching amounts to inciting and encouraging a breach of the peace. It is a narrow line, but it is clear that if we go as far as congratulating someone on a murder, we might be deemed to be suggesting that it was a good thing and that the struggle should continue in that way.
In September last year, immigration judges refused to carry out the law when they did not expel people to France and Belgium--people who had landed here as false asylum seekers on some extremely spurious grounds. There has been a legal problem, both in the extent of the law and in its being carried out.
I congratulate the Government on their sensible and consistent approach to the matter. They started publicly in the middle of last year, by seeking a change through the United Nations. The P8--G7 plus Russia, I think--ministerial meeting on terrorism in Paris on 30 July last year came out with the following statement:
I wished to say many other things on this matter, but the debate has gone on for a considerable time. I wanted to refer in more detail to the steering committee report. One aspect has not been raised--the criteria to be applied in deciding whether to extend jurisdiction extra-territorially. Paragraph 2.21 of the report states:
31 Jan 1997 : Column 612
I have concerns about one detail of the Bill, but as we are not in Committee I shall not go through it line by line. New section 1A(3) provides:
The problem is that when the defence raises the point, it must give its reason for doubting, but the enormous disparity of resources available to prosecution and defence, which is always the case in this country and elsewhere, suggests that it should be for the prosecution to prove, as it would if it were seeking extradition, that the offence is an offence in both jurisdictions.
Sir Ivan Lawrence (Burton):
This has been a busy law and order week, and this is the fifth time that I have burdened the House with my thoughts; for that, I humbly apologise. Hon. Members might be relieved to recall their lucky escape, in that we did not reach my Question 5 to the Prime Minister on Thursday, because of PET--pre-election tension.
Now that the week is coming to an end, perhaps I might be permitted to say that international crime exists on such an enormous scale that it justifies this extension of our jurisdiction beyond its traditional boundaries. Without
31 Jan 1997 : Column 613
That is why we have already extended our jurisdiction over sex tourism and the organised destruction of children's lives, with the Sex Offenders Bill on Monday, and why my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) has introduced this very important Bill, following the review of extra-territorial jurisdiction by the Government in July last year. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his good fortune and on choosing this Bill among a number of others that were available, and the Government on backing it to the hilt. I am especially grateful for the opportunity to be one of its sponsors.
The terrifying extension of international crime also explains why we are giving new and statutory powers to the National Criminal Intelligence Service, NCIS, which we set up and which has achieved notable successes; why we have given statutory position to a national crime squad; why we are doing what we can to strengthen Europol, Interpol and all the other international crime-busting organisations that can help to counter terrorism, drug trafficking, European Community fraud, international economic crime, sex tourism, football hooliganism, illegal immigration, currency counterfeiting and trade in nuclear materials, all of which are features of modern international crime; and why the United Kingdom has taken the lead in the councils of the world--a lead that I can assure the House is welcomed by our European, Commonwealth and international partners.
Those matters were addressed by the Home Affairs Select Committee, which I have the privilege of chairing and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) has referred. We began our inquiry in 1993 and reported in 1995. Our report "Organised Crime" received a positive response from the Government early in January 1996. Terrorism apart, the view which was widely expressed to us was that organised crime was on the increase across Europe and that while there might have been some successes against the Mafia in Italy, plenty of other areas of organised crime were expanding. Particular mention was made of the effect of the fall of the iron curtain and the break-up of the Soviet Union. One senior Italian official spoke of the former Soviet Union as a breeding ground and a highway for organised crime. We await with interest the reports which in due course we will no doubt receive from my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who visited Russia in the past week.
In our report we were fortunately able to conclude that the level of organised crime in the United Kingdom might be slightly less than elsewhere and, in particular, that there is no evidence of penetration by criminal organisations of Government itself, but our conclusion was that organised crime was nevertheless substantial and probably growing. So we said at the end of our report that the growing activity of organised crime called for an active response by all sectors of Government and law enforcement agencies if it was to be kept at bay. We said that the situation was not yet so serious in this country that essential elements of the criminal justice system needed to be overturned, but that if it should become apparent that serious and organised crime continued to grow and to threaten the fabric of British society, additional
31 Jan 1997 : Column 614
The time has come for us to take the action in the Bill--so much so that, except in one regard, it is difficult to see what objections there could be to the Bill. No one can be charged unless the substantive crime alleged is also a crime in Britain. So we do not by this measure extend the limits of what we in this country accept as criminal behaviour. No one wants Britain to be used as a base for the commission of crimes in other states or for giving hospitality to asylum seekers or anyone else who abuses that hospitality. The Bill will deter such activity.
But the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) did raise an interesting issue. He was unhappy about terrorism, which he said could cover freedom fighters such as President Nelson Mandela. I do not have the hon. Gentleman's difficulty. People of all parties in Britain are against the use of violence for political ends in any situation other than when war has been declared. There may have been people here who were sympathetic to the use of violence to challenge apartheid. There may have been people who would not have expected prosecution for sending letters of support, but none of that would have been a crime under the Bill, which requires positive acts of incitement to the commission of a crime or conspiracy, which also means more than sympathy.
We have to draw a line beyond which in a civilised society it is simply not permitted to go and the Bill draws that line. It is difficult to think of any crime other than terrorism to which the hon. Gentleman's objection could apply. It could hardly apply to sex tourism, drug trafficking, international fraud or most of the other crimes that I have mentioned, none of which would be likely to invoke such an acute question of public policy.
"It was clear to me that fears were running high and there was a very volatile reaction to the notion that Professor Masari, in their words, was being 'dumped in their country' . . . every single person I spoke to--every taxi driver, every person I spoke to in the bars--was against Professor Masari coming."
That was accepted as evidence in the appeal proceedings and was reported in The Independent on 27 February 1996. By that time, The Independent had decided to run a campaign to ensure that Dr. al-Masari could remain in this country and undertake the sort of activities that I hope the Bill will shortly make illegal.
"The UK is anything but a soft touch for asylum seekers . . . They are welcomed not with a humanitarian response but with suspicion and a presumption of guilt."
He did not say that asylum seekers are also welcomed with full rights to social security payments and housing, and often leap over the more legitimate demands of our citizens. Leaving that point aside, he was wrong because statistics show that many people come to this country who are not asylum seekers in the proper meaning of the term. They apply for asylum because our laws have been--and, I regret to say, remain--too lax. Mr. Hardwick was also wrong about the presumption of guilt: suspicion is surely well justified by the minuscule percentage who turn out to be genuine asylum seekers.
and trade reasons' its obligations under the 1951 United Nations Convention on Refugees. And he questioned whether its actions were 'within the humanitarian spirit with which the convention and asylum legislation should be interpreted'."
In my view, expressions such as "humanitarian spirit" should also be applied to innocent civilians in this country and abroad who become the victims of the terrorism incited by people who falsely claim asylum in this country. In case anyone missed that edition, The Independent repeated most of that nonsense on 18 April.
"governments should seek additional means to address the subject of refugees and asylum seekers who plan, fund or commit terrorist acts."
In July, The Times was slightly cynical about how long that would take, saying that it
"could easily become mired in UN committees; it could take years to reach the required consensus."
The Times referred to the 1951 United Nations General Assembly as being "more coherent" than it is currently--a comment that I have heard applied to the leaders in that newspaper. In fact, it happened more quickly than The Times gave the Government credit for--it is sometimes a little grudging in its support for the Government. On 18 December, the declaration on terrorism spelt it out unequivocally that acts of terrorism and the financing, planning and incitement of those acts are contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. That means that, when considering whether asylum has to be granted, in accordance with UN rulings and guidance, we are now able to say no--I hope we will say it clearly in future--on the ground that people are coming here with the intention of continuing to plot, inspire or incite terrorism. We can now clearly say that that is outwith the UN requirements on refugee status.
"it is suggested that consideration should be given to taking extra-territorial jurisdiction"--
which is what we are doing today--
"only where at least one of the following tests was satisfied".
The first condition is
"where the offence is serious (this might be defined, in respect of existing offences, by reference to the length of sentence".
The second is
"where, by virtue of the nature of the offence, the witnesses and evidence necessary for the prosecution are likely to be available in UK territory, even though the offence was committed outside the jurisdiction".
The third is
"where there is international consensus that certain conduct is reprehensible and that concerted action is needed involving the taking of extra-territorial jurisdiction".
The fourth is
"where the vulnerability of the victim makes it particularly important to be able to tackle instances of the offence".
The fifth is
"where it appears to be in the interests of the standing and reputation of the UK in the international community".
The final condition is
"where there is a danger that offences would otherwise not be justiciable".
The Bill meets at least three, if not four, of those six criteria, and that makes it an excellent answer to my opening question about whether it is justified by the mischief with which it seeks to deal.
"The second condition is that that act or other event constitutes an offence under the law in force in that country or territory."
It seems to me that in every instance it should be for the prosecution to establish that it is indeed an offence in the other country, so the dual criminality test is applied, but under subsection (8) of that new section,
"the second condition is taken to be satisfied unless"
the defence raises the point.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |