| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Donald Anderson: The war crimes legislation.
Mr. Leigh: That is my next point. We face similar questions regarding the War Crimes Act 1991, which gave British courts jurisdiction to try people for certain crimes committed abroad before they were citizens of the United Kingdom. In all honesty, it cannot be said that there have been any notable or successful prosecutions under the Act. We all know about the dramatic collapse of the recent--and the only--case brought under the Act. The Government were warned again and again during the Bill's passage through this and the other place. However, for laudable reasons--including the appalling nature of the crimes committed long ago--they felt compelled to act. I understand that, but the fact remains that no successful prosecutions have been brought under the Act--despite a considerable outlay of public funds. We do not want my hon. Friend's Bill to go the same way.
31 Jan 1997 : Column 620
Even if a conviction were gained under the Bill, it would be as a consequence of a public trial. Such a trial would doubtless be lengthy and involve a huge amount of publicity, and would serve as a totally protected public platform for putting across the defendant's beliefs. Assuming successful convictions were obtained--which I think would be difficult in any event; it might be worse if people were found innocent following a long, public trial during which they had used our courts as a vehicle for their political views--British embassies around the world might be picketed, if not attacked, by supporters of those who were convicted. They would claim that innocent men--not paedophiles or criminals--had been incarcerated in British prisons and that their only crime was a desire to publicise injustice.
In that sense, the Bill is very different from the legislation regarding paedophiles that was introduced last year. Paedophiles have no sympathy from any quarter in any civilised country. Those who oppose the Algerian Government--for better or for worse--have enormous support in Algeria and throughout the Arab world. We do not sympathise with them--they are appalling, violent people--but they claim that their democratic rights have been overthrown. They say that they won the election and the results were overturned--I think that I have made my point.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will address some justified questions when he replies to the debate. Where did the Bill come from? Who asked for it? Is it a viable measure or is it a sop to friendly countries to stop them complaining? Will there be prosecutions under the Bill? How will the difficulties of bringing prosecutions be overcome? Does he have particular people or groups in mind for prosecution, and are they, at this moment, conspiring to commit terrorism in this country? There is evidence that they are so conspiring and that there are not the required powers under existing common law or legislation to deal with such groups.
What other options were considered? Why were other options discounted? In countries such as France and Germany, organisations with suspected links are proscribed. Equally, foreigners seeking residence in those countries are banned from taking part in political activities. Were these measures considered? After all, they would be effective. There would be no evidential problems and there would not be the consequence of giving people publicity in courts.
Do we want to go down the German route? Germany's historic record on civic rights has not been unblemished. There is concern about German persecution of scientologists merely for their views. I am not sure that proscription and the banning of organisations because their views are found dangerous are within our historic traditions. I am not arguing, therefore, that the proscription and banning route is the right one. The Minister should deal with the point when he replies.
Was consideration given to amending the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978? Under that Act, offences are triable in the United Kingdom if they have been committed in a designated country. It is possible, therefore, to prosecute someone in a UK court who commits a terrorist offence in another country, provided that that country has been so designated. Currently the designated countries are European, together with India and the United States. Would it be simpler--I put the question to the Minister--to add conspiracy and
31 Jan 1997 : Column 621
Mr. Bernard Jenkin (Colchester, North):
I do not wish to detain the House long because there has been an extensive and most interesting debate. The contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) was no exception. He dissected many of the legal uncertainties that we may be opening up for ourselves.
The sad background to the Bill is one that did not exist 50 years ago, in the sense that international terrorism has become a new industry. The transportability of individuals and their heinous acts is something with which the law must be able to contend. I remember the shock that we all felt when the Israeli Olympic team was murdered in the early 1970s. The Palestine Liberation Organisation developed the technique of hijacking international airliners. Those events made us realise that we were moving into a new era of transportable, mobile terrorism, which has since been extended to such matters as football hooliganism, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) referred to it.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing a Bill that reflects a laudable aim. But let us be honest. The Bill is before the House because we have found the legal situation surrounding who may come to our country and stay in it increasingly confused, and increasingly complicated by perhaps over-sensitive views on human rights.
I want to place on record an important precept that we should hang on to as we discuss this matter. It must be within the powers of the Government of any sovereign state to decide who its citizens are--in our case, Her Majesty's subjects--who is accorded full political rights, who may not enter that sovereign state and who may enter on conditions but, on breach of those conditions, may be required to leave. It is surely a mark of a sovereign state that it is able to define its borders, its citizens, who has rights under its jurisdiction and who has fewer rights.
Mr. Donald Anderson:
Like many other sovereign states, this country has signed a number of international obligations that limit our national sovereignty.
Mr. Jenkin:
That is an important point, but I do not think that, when sovereign states entered into those obligations, they expected jurisprudential interpretation to be manipulated in the way that it has been. My right hon.
31 Jan 1997 : Column 622
We are dealing with the phenomenon of international terrorism, which knows no national boundaries. The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) may say that problems that do not recognise national boundaries must be dealt with by legal regimes that transcend national boundaries. The important point about the Bill is that--as with the Sex Offenders Bill--it deals with international offences on a sovereign-state-by-sovereign-state basis, using their national laws.
There are limitations to that proposition. Civilised nations, such as the member countries of the European Union, the United States of America and the established and most of the new democracies, tend to apply those provisions where practicable. However, many nations, such as Libya, which is well known for sponsoring terrorism around the world, have no intention of applying such sanctions. Even if we were able to impose international sanctions on Libya under international law--that is probably possible--unless we are prepared to use force to enforce them, international law has no meaning for an uncivilised dictatorship.
My hon. Friend the Minister dealt robustly with the important point made by the hon. Member for Swansea, East about the Mandela defence. I listened carefully to the exchanges and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle, I think that the hon. Gentleman has a point. A decision about the quality of an individual's actions is a subjective judgment: I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree with that. Whether that judgment can be left to the courts or whether it is an overtly political judgment that can be dealt with only by political authorities--ultimately Ministers--is the question at the heart of the controversy.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |