| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Waterson: We shall hear shortly what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say. I am not trying to duck the debate, but I think that some of the later groups of amendments will give us more scope to look at mechanisms and how they will or will not work.
On the specific issue that we are discussing, certain offences come to mind. I have thought of one, but there may be other examples. Threatening behaviour, for example, would be an appropriate charge to bring in the context of football hooliganism--one of the high-profile issues that we have recently debated in connection with the Bill. British so-called fans plan to go abroad to football matches, and they conspire, possibly with fans abroad, to cause criminal acts.
I shall return to the general point, promising to return to other matters, as we must, on other amendments. In view of the sheer generality of my Bill, which covers the whole sweep of the criminal law in this country, I do not see how we can draw such boundaries. More importantly,
I do not see why they should be considered either necessary or desirable. I therefore invite the hon. Gentleman to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Kirkhope:
It is clear that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) seeks to eliminate what he perceives to be "unimportant" offences. He is saying that in some instances it does not matter if people in this country are conspiring to commit offences abroad, even when the test of dual criminality is satisfied.
As I said in earlier proceedings on the Bill, I do not subscribe to that view and I cannot accept it.
Mr. Galloway:
Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Kirkhope:
Not until I have got a little further.
Mr. Galloway:
On that very point?
Mr. Kirkhope:
Not at the moment.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne(Mr. Waterson) said, affray is a summary offence. That was a good example. If we accepted the amendments and thus could not apply the Bill to such behaviour, that would leave a considerable gap in our ability to deter people and to deal with crime and international bad behaviour. That is important in the context of the Bill.
I listened with some interest to the meandering speech by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead(Mr. Galloway). Had the hon. Gentleman been here on Second Reading, he would have been able to contribute a view to the argument about whether one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. We debated that idea fully then and the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), who is not in the Chamber today, made a long and interesting speech. My hon. Friends felt that it was totally wrong that someone should be able to use this country as a haven for the plotting and planning of criminal acts in other countries.
Mr. Galloway:
It is only right that the Minister should allow me to intervene, as he has referred to me, although he looked as though he was giving way to me with a heavy heart.
The analogy that the Minister used cannot be true. I am willing to accept that he did not support the African National Congress's freedom struggle--I am fairly certain that he did not--and I am even willing to accept that he did not support the Contra revolutionaries in Nicaragua, but it is stretching things a little to believe that he would not support violent criminal action to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Looking back into history, does he feel that he would have had to offer support to the French resistance, whose members were committing acts of sabotage and cutting the throats of the Nazi occupiers of France? Under the Bill, they and their supporters here in Britain would have been guilty of an offence.
Mr. Kirkhope:
I do not support the idea of anyone using our country to incite others to commit crimes elsewhere, any more than I support the actions of Members of Parliament who suggest that others should fail to pay their poll tax or disobey the law in this country in any other way.
If we accepted the amendments, we would deny ourselves the possibility of taking action to deal with many offences which, although they may be triable on a summary basis, are not minor or insignificant in the effect that they may have elsewhere. Therefore, I fully support the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne and the Government recommend that the House does not accept the amendments.
Mr. Michael:
The Minister said that he did not subscribe to the idea that it does not matter that there are some offences arising abroad which involve some act in this country. That is the precise argument that he and other Ministers used when we were trying to persuade them to pursue people involved in sex tourism and child abuse abroad. When we suggested that Britain should go further in providing powers to pursue such people, the Minister responded by saying that we should be careful not to go too far and hit too wide a target.
I agree that the amendment is not a perfect mechanism. As both the Minister and the hon. Member for Eastbourne have said, the amendment as drafted--it was drafted rapidly--would have unintended consequences. That is why I do not intend to press it to a vote. However, the Minister should take note of the lower end of the spectrum of offences--the less evil activity which might be prosecuted under the Bill unless some mechanism is put in place. We tabled the amendment because all our debate in Committee was about the higher end of the spectrum of offences--the sort of serious issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) raised. I want to ensure that the danger of the Bill's being used against petty offences that do not have that significance, and do not involve violence, is understood and taken into account. I urge the Minister to take that point and to consider it in the context of the overall mechanism that the Bill will introduce. If he cannot do that, will he ensure that the point is dealt with by the time the Bill goes to another place? Hon. Members on both sides of the House would find that satisfactory.
I have made my point, and I hope that it has been properly registered. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Leigh:
I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 16, leave out from beginning to end of line 24.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 12, in page 2, line 25, leave out
No. 13, in page 2, line 27, leave out from 'satisfied' to end of line 28.
Mr. Leigh:
The amendments have been tabled in response to concerns that the Bill as it stands could be seen to place responsibility on the defence to disprove an element of the prosecution's case when, due to the complex nature of the alleged offences, the defence may not have the resources to do that. My amendments would remove proposed sections 1A(8) and 1A(9) and, if they
The Bill demonstrates our commitment to do our bit in halting international--and particularly organised--crime. There is no dispute about that, as I am sure that even the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) will recognise. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is particularly disturbed about football hooliganism, and I share his concerns. During the Second Reading debate on 31 January, hon. Members--including me--spoke of terrorism and other forms of international crime. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence)--who unfortunately is not able to join us today, but who made an interesting speech in that debate--referred to the report on organised crime produced by the Home Affairs Select Committee, which he chairs. He described the Bill as a partial response to that report.
Those who support the Bill and want to see it become law hope that it will deter those who would use Britain as a base for plotting international crime or for fomenting terrorism. We hope that the Bill will answer foreign criticism--we have discussed the issue both in the Chamber and in Committee--that our present laws allow people to act in a manner that is damaging to other countries and to our reputation abroad while not necessarily causing physical damage here. Such criticism harms our international standing: that is why we want the Bill to become law.
Although we support the concept of permitting the prosecution in this country of people who conspire to commit crimes abroad, it means that the prosecution must fully abide by the traditions and procedures of our criminal and our common law as that law has developed over many centuries. For instance, it has long been a tradition that anyone who is brought before a criminal court does not have to prove his or her innocence. The court must hear and assess the evidence and prove that a triable offence was committed in the first place. That is why we have committal proceedings.
', if it thinks fit, may' and insert 'shall'.
"The court may permit the defence to require the prosecution to show that the second condition is satisfied".
At present, proposed section 1A(9) states:
"The court, if it thinks fit, may permit the defence to require the prosecution to show that the second condition is satisfied".
For those who are not familiar with the legislation, the second condition is that the offence is illegal in the other jurisdiction as well as our own. The trouble with the Bill at present is that it is possible for the court to put the onus on the defence to prove that an offence was committed abroad. I will explain why I think that that would be unfair and contrary to our traditions.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |