---

Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way, because he has come to the kernel of getting the balance right. Unless I have misread the Bill, the protection to which he refers is not in the Bill and would not necessarily apply to the powers provided by the Bill.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I knew exactly why the hon. Gentleman wished to intervene, but I let him do so out of

31 Jan 1997 : Column 615

courtesy. My next sentence was to have been and is that, as the Bill passes though its stages in Parliament, perhaps some thought might usefully be given to requiring the approval of the Attorney-General before any prosecution is brought under this legislation. Speaking personally, l am less than sympathetic to the point made by the hon. Member for Swansea, East, but I have to concede that there is an arguable matter. Both it and my proposal might usefully be considered further by those who are older and wiser than me as the Bill progresses.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledges the problem and that he has tried honestly to put forward a solution in the form of the additional hurdle of the Attorney-General's agreement. The problem with that is this: as we know, the Attorney-General has a quasi-independent position vis-a-vis the Government and that degree of independence would not be perceived by other jurisdictions. The effect would be that someone perceived as being a member of our Government would be giving a judgment on the nature of a Government overseas. In the case of some tyrannical regimes, we would be happy about that; but there are other regimes in the middle. However, it may be that, in response to this problem, either the Attorney-General or some other means, such as a code of conduct, might be found to at least seek to protect those whom the hon. and learned Gentleman and I probably agree should be protected from the excessive ambit of this Bill.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: That was too complicated for me to follow precisely. I do not think that there is a problem. If there is a matter of public policy, the Cabinet would consider the matter and then, no doubt, the Attorney-General's mind could be brought to bear. He would decide whether a prosecution was appropriate and would be prepared to defend that decision in this House, which is the strength of that system.

Mr. Kirkhope: I am listening carefully to my hon. and learned Friend. He is making an important point, but I should mention that, as things currently stand, the consent of the Attorney-General is provided for in statute only in extremely limited circumstances--mostly having to do with offences under the Official Secrets Act. The problem is that introducing a consent provision for the Attorney-General in this legislation, where prosecution could be in regard to any sort of criminal offence, would be a difficult move.

As I said to the hon. Member for Swansea, East, (Mr. Anderson) the Government believe that terrorist acts are unacceptable in all circumstances, so it would be difficult for a situation to arise where the Attorney-General--or, in view of our discussion just now, anyone else--could decide that specific circumstances made prosecution inappropriate.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but the Attorney-General could always decide these difficult issues. He is often presented with a question of public policy. The law may be clear, but the next question is, does public policy require that the processes of the law be instigated?

Difficulty is not a reason not to proceed. There are always difficulties, and in any case where there are particular difficulties, where the Attorney-General has

31 Jan 1997 : Column 616

power he must resolve those difficulties. The existence of a difficulty is not a reason not to do something which requires a final arbiter as to the public policy of instigating prosecution.

I return to the example that sprang to mind. There was some activity in this country to help the rebels against the regime in Afghanistan. There are probably countless other examples of situations where human rights infringements in other countries so obviously call for international action that we might be provoked into doing things that are only arguably criminal. In those circumstances, mentioned by the hon. Member for Swansea, East, a question of public policy might arise; and traditionally, in our system, the arbiter of public policy in matters of prosecution has been the Attorney-General.

As I have said, I do not go as far as the hon. Member for Swansea, East and do not share his views on terrorism, but I realise that on law and order I am a hard right winger and that there are other views. As the Bill passes through Parliament those other views should be aired by those who are older, wiser and perhaps more liberal in their attitudes to such things than I am.

Mr. Butler: If my hon. and learned Friend is a hard right winger, I am a centre main fuselage in this matter.

I privately asked my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) why the issue of the Attorney-General's consent was not mentioned in the Bill. One can envisage the type of prosecution in which the Attorney-General's early involvement might prevent appalling mistakes and prevent obviously inappropriate cases being brought to court. I support the suggestion regarding the Attorney-General's involvement. There are far more people in the House older and wiser than me than there are people older and wiser than my hon. and learned Friend.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I shall not take the matter further lest any enthusiasm that I might show tempts those above me to appoint me to the Standing Committee. I shall be happy to readdress the matter, when I have read what everyone says, on Report or when the Bill returns from the other place, which, as we all know, is the repository of much wisdom.

The Government would be remiss if they did not take every step to counter and reduce internationally operating organised crime; that alone justifies the Bill. If there should be the slightest doubt about the burden that the Bill places upon us, a moment's thought would resolve it: for the Bill's primary effect would be, not to provoke a flurry of prosecutions, but to cut off an avenue of international criminal activity by deterring such activity. The Bill accordingly has my wholehearted support.

12.39 pm

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on introducing the Bill. Ian Gow was not only a colleague of mine, he was a close friend. The Bill is a fitting memorial to him. I remember having dinner with him just a few days before he was assassinated. It was an appalling moment when we heard of his death. I am delighted that his successor has introduced this Bill, to which he spoke so ably.

31 Jan 1997 : Column 617

There are two aspects to my speech, which I hope will not take too long. First, we could argue that the Bill is exceptionally wide, giving extra-territorial jurisdiction on virtually any criminal act anywhere in the world. The remarks by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) are pertinent to that. I intend to raise some concerns with my hon. Friend the Minister, which I am sure he will address.

Secondly, the Bill is about the fight against international terrorism. We all support that fight. I want to explore that theme for a few moments. This country has a justifiable reputation for sheltering people who suffer from autocratic and repressive regimes. Centuries ago, we sheltered the French Huguenots. We sheltered refugees from Nazi Germany. During recent years, we even sheltered refugees from the former South African Government.

Being a country whose citizens have an instinct for free speech, it has always been the case that some of those who come here hold very strong views and continue to oppose the regime from which they fled. However, the trouble is that there is a very narrow line between opinion and incitement. For example, the giving of a person's honest opinion, which will reach an audience in a foreign country--although there may be difficulties in that--may, as a consequence, cause some form of political activity there. That political activity may start as a peaceful expression of views, but may then lead to street demonstrations, which become violent and get out of hand, which then leads to the violent overthrow of an autocratic regime that does not allow any normal expression of political oppression. There could be that sort of activity in this country.

There is another form of activity, which is the direct conspiracy or incitement that leads to terrorism or revolution in another country. We could all unite behind the proposition that we should not harbour that sort of terrorist. However, it is a narrow and difficult line, and we are now proposing to give the courts the difficult job of interpreting that. It is made all the more difficult because political traditions in other countries are so very different from those in this country.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne will say that the Bill would ban only conspiracy or incitement leading to terrorism. However, we are, in a Second Reading debate, entitled to ask how the courts will deal with the reality. The line is narrow. One man's free speech is seen by another man as formenting terrorism. In considering the proposals and striking at terrorism, we must all bear it in mind that the Bill should not be able to be used as a vehicle by a foreign country that does not like the views being expressed in Britain. We cannot allow our tradition of free speech to be subverted by commercial considerations.

Let us consider for a moment the case of Saudi Arabia. It is a vital trading partner for Britain. It is a friendly power in an unfriendly area of the world. However, Saudi Arabia is also an autocratic regime which cracks down on any form of dissent. The case of Dr. al-Masari is instructive. No one would support Dr. al-Masari if he were inciting terrorism in Saudi Arabia. He would, presumably, deny that. We must support him if he is merely an inconvenience to our relationship with a foreign power. Therein lies our tradition of free speech.

31 Jan 1997 : Column 618

Terrorism has no ready or easy definition. We may instinctively spot it, but we cannot define it. As an editorial in The Times put it on 12 July 1996, terrorism

"can no more be defined than a terrier can define a rat, but it is instinctively known and detested by all democracies."

The editorial concluded by saying that

"there can be no shelter for advocates of terrorism either within Britain or overseas."

So say all of us to those sentiments expressed by The Times.

The target of the Bill must be that ill-defined but easily recognisable creature--terrorism--and not legitimate free speech. Terrorism is a scourge and a modern-day evil. Many people believe that their politics are right and that those of their opponents are wrong. In the House that is known as democracy. There are others who are so arrogant about being right that they believe that any action, however dreadful, is justifiable to bring about what they seek. As night follows day, such people see violence for political ends as right. Perhaps their consciences sometimes prick them, but they often dress up their activities in quasi-military-speak or, even worse, in religious terms, as martyrdom for the cause.

All sensible people and all responsible Governments know that the modern scourge of terrorism must be put to an end. The basic duty of a Government is to defend citizens, whether from a mugger or from a terrorist. Terrorists must be left in no doubt that wherever they hide, whether they are plotting another outrage against the innocent or lying low after some act of carnage, they will be sought out and brought to justice.

In that battle, we all welcome the United Nations' adoption of the United Kingdom's initiative to stop terrorists finding refuge in member countries. The UN declaration on terrorism spells it out unequivocally that acts of terrorism, the financing and planning of such acts and incitement to commit them are contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN. That means that the UN convention on refugees will not apply to those involved in terrorism. That is but one step forward in the fight against terrorism. We need further responses to those concerns.

From newspaper cuttings that I have received from the Library, it is clear that France, India, Egypt, Algeria and Israel have in recent years laid charges at our door. Last year, as we have heard, the Government were embarrassed by the call by Saudi exiles for the overthrow of the Saudi royal family.

France and Algeria have complained that extremist Muslims who seek the overthrow of the Algerian Government and who bomb and kill in France have refuges in London. Similar complaints have been made by Egypt and Israel in relation to Hamas supporters, and by the Indian authorities about Sikh extremists.

Both for the international standing of Britain and in the fight against terrorism, action must be taken in this country to deal with such people. We support that, but in considering the Bill I am left wondering--perhaps the Committee can deal with the point--what difference the Bill will make. Will it achieve the laudable ends on which we are all agreed?

It is already an offence under the prevention of terrorism Act to solicit funds for terrorist activities outside this country, but proving that is another matter. It is

31 Jan 1997 : Column 619

difficult to prove in a court of law not only that there is a direct link between the money raised and terrorist activities, but that those raising the money were aware of the use to which it would be put.

The Bill would touch not on that specific succour for terrorism, but on such matters as inciting terrorism, equipping terrorists and planning terrorist acts. That still leaves an evidential problem.

To bring about a successful prosecution under the Bill, it will have to be shown that an offence has been committed in this country and under the law of the country to which it relates. We will need to collect evidence and information from the UK and from abroad. I do not want to be unduly negative towards my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne, but obtaining sufficient evidence to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt could prove extremely difficult.

Added to that is the fact that there are wide variations in law between different states. We cannot ignore the considerable practical difficulties involved in bringing a prosecution under the Bill. British police have no authority to gather evidence abroad. Witnesses in criminal trials are required to give oral evidence in order to facilitate the defence in conducting cross-examinations, but there are no powers to compel witnesses from abroad to attend court in this country. How distant may a conspiracy be in space or time from the final act? Juries might well take a jaundiced view of a case where the final act of terrorism is very distant from the initial conspiracy in this country.

That does not take account of possible defences--for example, the assertion that a defendant's actions were taken in defence of fellow citizens who were suffering under a brutal dictator. What about the Nelson Mandela defence that the hon. Member for Swansea, East described so ably? My hon. Friend the Minister was very firm with the hon. Gentleman. He said that the Government cannot give succour to anyone, even if a person is only blowing up telegraph poles. However, it may not be as simple as that. Nelson Mandela may have incited people to acts that would constitute a grey area in terms of criminal activity in both this country and the then South Africa.

I have sought to outline what I perceive to be very real difficulties with the legislation. The size of the problems prompts one to ask whether any successful prosecutions are likely to be brought by virtue of the Bill.

---