House of Commons
Friday 14 February 1997
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Jurisdiction (Conspiracy and Incitement) Bill
Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
9.34 am
Mr. George Galloway (Glasgow, Hillhead): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I believe that the House is not quorate and seek your advice on how I might test that. This is a very important Bill, which changes the face of liberty in this country, and it would be entirely wrong for it to be slipped through in a thin House, simply because hardly anyone knows that we are discussing it. How might I move that the House is not quorate?
Madam Speaker: We do not need a quorum in the House. As for hon. Members and others not knowing today's business, I have to say that it was made known some time ago. I have been careful in selecting the amendments to ensure that we have an excellent debate. I am not prepared to go any further other than to say that the business of the House must now be proceeded with.
Mr. Galloway: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I have been advised that 40 hon. Members are required to be present to deal with this business, and that you count as four--I have no quarrel with that, except that it is an underestimation. It is my advice that we need 40 hon. Members to be present.
Madam Speaker: That is the case for Division purposes, but a quorum is not needed now.
Mr. Galloway: In those circumstances, I beg to move, That Strangers do withdraw.
Notice having been taken that Strangers were present, Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143 (Withdrawal of Strangers from the House), put forthwith the Question, That Strangers do withdraw:--
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth):
I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 25, at end insert--
Madam Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 1, line 26, leave out 'fourth' and insert 'fifth'.
No. 3, in page 2, line 32, leave out 'fourth' and insert 'fifth'.
No. 7, in clause 2, page 3, line 13, after 'offence', insert
No. 10, in clause 3, page 4, line 11, after 'offence', insert
Mr. Michael:
I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on his Bill reaching this stage. It is an ambitious Bill, which has, not surprisingly, received considerable drafting help from the Home Office and is, in essence, a Government Bill. The hon. Gentleman has not sought to abrogate responsibility for it, as he made clear in Committee, but it addresses wider issues than a private Member's Bill normally does. Scrutiny was rightly given on Second Reading and in Committee to the necessary balance.
The targets, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne has said--the Minister and I have repeated this--are the evils of terrorism, violence, racism and the conspiracy to commit crimes against civilised society. The problem with the Bill is also its strength--it is widely drawn to avoid spurious challenges on technical detail that might occur if it were drawn narrowly to cover a specific range of offences.
With the Bill having been drawn so widely to hit the intended targets, hon. Members on both sides have made it clear in the House and in Committee that we need reassurances that there will be a balance to avoid the powers given in the Bill being used for purposes beyond those intended by Parliament. I do not want to labour that point, because it was made well in Committee by many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). He wanted to be here this morning, but he has constituency commitments that he could not escape. I am sure that the Minister agrees that my hon. Friend made his points with reason and force in Committee. Conservative Members made the same points.
There is no disagreement on the fact that in certain circumstances, the powers in the Bill could be used in a way that the House did not intend. Examples of possible problems include Nelson Mandela's time in the United Kingdom, the activities of many people in this country who supported the Anti-Apartheid Movement and those of British Somalis whose relatives in the north of
Somalia--the former British Somaliland--were subjected to human rights abuses in a civil war conducted by the then President, Siad Barre. That was a hidden war for many in this country, long before the public conflict in Somalia. Hon. Members on both sides gave many other examples from around the world of cases in which the fine line between supporting those who want to bring democracy to their country and supporting those who promote violence and terrorism is difficult to draw in law.
Mr. Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne):
I think that the hon. Gentleman accepted in Committee that it is impossible to draw the line that he describes in the Bill, which is why he is looking for an extraneous mechanism--albeit specified in the Bill--to require consent in certain cases. I think that that is a fair summary of his position.
Mr. Michael:
It is indeed. It would be too legalistic to try to draw a line, but it is sensible to have a provision built in. The protection offered by the powers of the Attorney-General and the clear understanding of his role--not his role as a member of the Government, but his other role of scrutinising prosecution--would give assurances to the House that the Bill will hit its intended target and will not go beyond that with a scatter of shot at all sorts of unintended targets.
The Minister undertook in Committee to consider what had been said. The debates on the Bill have shown the House of Commons at its best, on the Floor of the House and in Committee. I know that some people outside criticise us when we argue violently across the Chamber, but sniff out a conspiracy when we try to agree. Hon. Members on both sides have been united in supporting the purpose of the Bill and have also been united in trying to tease out a mechanism that would get the law in place, with the safeguard that I have described.
I do not seek to delay the House. Anybody who wants to see the arguments laid out can read the Committee Hansard. I appreciate that the Minister is not in the easiest situation, because it is only three days since the Committee debate. He has had only a short time to fulfil his promise to consider the arguments that were made there. The fact that the Government and the promoter of the Bill have not tabled amendments today shows that,48 hours ago, the consideration that the Minister promised had not been completed. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about that. I know that he and the promoter of the Bill are sympathetic to the strong point that I am making.
Length of contribution is not necessarily a sign of strength of argument. I would not help my argument by going on at length. I hope to hear sympathy for the need for a mechanism to avoid the misuse of the powers in the Bill and an undertaking that the Minister will consider the point further and will try to meet it when the Bill receives further consideration in another place. If that is his response, I shall not seek to prolong the debate or to push the amendments to a vote. I believe that we can make progress if the Minister considers the issues that he undertook to address.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope):
The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but is he talking about amendments that we have not reached?
'(4A) The fourth condition is that the offence referred to in subsection (4) would be triable on indictment and punishable by imprisonment.'.
'which is triable on indictment and which is punishable by imprisonment'.
'which is triable on indictment and which is punishable by imprisonment'.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |