| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 44, in page 7, line 13, after 'territory' insert
- 'provided that the offence, if it were an offence in any jurisdiction in the United Kingdom, would not infringe the terms of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, agreed by the Council of Europe at Rome on the 4th November 1950.'.
- '(5A) The fifth condition is that the procedure for the trial of the offence in that country or territory, if it were the procedure for the trial of the offence in any jurisdiction in the United Kingdom, would not infringe the terms of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, agreed by the Council of Europe at Rome on 4th November 1950.'.
No. 49, in page 8, line 5, leave out 'a question' and insert 'questions'.
No. 53, in page 8, line 36, at end insert--
If Ministers had been sensitive to the feelings of the Committee, they would have withdrawn clauses 5, 6 and 7. They would have left them for another occasion, when
the House returns in October. There is no reason to rush through those provisions, but we have rushed through a law under which anyone in Britain who conspiresto overthrow a Government--however awful and dictatorial--could be guilty of a criminal offence.
During the past 15 hours, we have heard examples of how this law could have been used in the past. If it had been in force 30 or 40 years ago, refugees in this country as diverse as Mahatma Gandhi and General De Gaulle would have been caught. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has admitted, the word "terrorist" itself is very imprecise. The historical odium attached to conspiracy law ought to give us much cause for concern. As others have said, yesterday's terrorist is tomorrow's freedom fighter.
As chair of the parliamentary human rights group, I am particularly concerned about the many campaigning organisations in the country that may somehow or other, through their activities, be caught up in the Bill. Last night, at about half-past 11, I was telephoned by someone who told me that the US Congress had just voted a substantial sum for an organisation that I chair called Indict, which aims to bring Saddam Hussein before an international criminal court. Congress has also voted money for another organisation based in London, the Iraqi national congress, which has as one of its aims the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
I recognise that this Government would be glad to see the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, but a previous Government who were trading with Iraq might not have been quite so happy. Such a Government might want to take action under the Bill against an organisation that was committed to the overthrow of that regime.
Those who campaign for democracy in Indonesia might want to distribute literature calling for the overthrow of President Habibie. This country has considerable trading links with Indonesia, and our arms trade continues apace, unfortunately, with the country. We might argue, as people do--wrongly, in my view--that jobs would be at risk in this country if that trade ceased, for whatever reason. We know that, in the past, British aid has been used to sweeten some of our arms deals with Indonesia. Suppose that we believed that the people campaigning in this country for the overthrow of President Habibie were a threat to jobs and to trade. What action might a Government take under the Bill to repress those people?
Many hon. Members have mentioned the situation in Saudi Arabia--again, a country with which we have a large arms trade. We do not know how much, because the Al Yamamah arms deal is still a secret in this country. However, Saudi Arabia has been identified by our human rights group as a repressive regime which tortures people in custody. We have uncovered horrific cases where human rights have been violated in that country.
If someone in this country criticised that regime or campaigned to change it, what would we--with our big arms trade with Saudi Arabia--do? What attitude would the Attorney-General take to somebody who might jeopardise that trade? We know that this proposal was a knee-jerk response by an Opposition Member who wanted to placate Saudi Arabia when it failed to extradite a dissident from this country. Nobody knows what would happen under this Bill, and I am concerned about all those groups.
I would prefer to see clauses 5, 6 and 7 scrapped altogether. Let us consider them at length at another time, but they should not be pressed tonight. I appeal to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is a reasonable man. I congratulate him on the way in which he has responded to the debate. We want to help him as far as possible, but not when we have serious concerns about the proposals in clauses 5, 6 and 7.
Mr. McNamara:
I will be brief.
My hon. Friend the Member for--
Mr. McNamara:
For somewhere in Wales. At this hour of the morning, I would find it difficult to say Ballybunion.
My hon. Friend has advanced a compelling argument, so I do not want to go over the particular incidents that she has mentioned. I want to deal with the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and myself.
We seek in the amendment to set criteria by which one can examine whether a particular action should be taken. If these provisions are to go through--I agree with my hon. Friend that we would rather not have them at all--the action being followed in or for that state or territory should not infringe--if it were an action in the UK or in any of the UK's jurisdictions--the European convention on human rights. Those criteria are the entitlement to a fair trial, an independent judiciary, the ability of the defendant to see the evidence against him, and a balanced attitude towards both the defence and the prosecution. That is what is contained in the European convention.
If we were to adopt that attitude, it would go some way to meeting many of the misgivings that my colleagues have on these clauses. It would not overcome them, but it would go some way to meeting their misgivings.
We would then add a fifth condition to the four conditions that have to be met to bring such an action:
Therefore, we would be able to meet the particular problems that have been enumerated by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) in relation to countries such as Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and all the other
countries where we have a real fear that human rights are being abused. We have our own criteria for the proper way in which a trial should be held. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary spoke about throwing the procedure open to the world, saying that we do it for the Council of Europe countries, for the United States and for India, so why should we not do it for others?
'who shall have regard to the human rights situation in the country concerned.'.
No. 83, in page 8, line 36, at end insert--
'(5A) Before deciding whether to consent to proceedings for an offence triable by virtue of section 1A above, the Attorney General shall have regard to the standards of respect for democracy and human rights in the country or territory where the result of the conspiracy was intended to occur and whether that occurrence was intended to combat injustice or oppression.',
No. 84, in clause 6, page 9, line 16, at end insert--
'(5A) Before deciding whether to consent to proceedings for an offence triable by virtue of Article 9 above, the Attorney General shall have regard to the standards of respect for democracy and human rights in the country or territory where the result of the conspiracy was intended to occur and whether that occurrence was intended to combat injustice or oppression.'.
No. 81, in clause 7, page 9, line 30, after 'Kingdom' insert 'other than a country or territory to which subsection (1A) applies.
(1A) This subsection applies to any country or territory which--
No. 85, in page 10, line 19, at end insert--
(a) is the subject of any embargo on trade agreed by the General Assembly of the United Nations, the European Union or Her Majesty's Government;
(b) has not ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; or
(c) in the opinion of the Secretary of State is a country or territory where human rights are not respected.'.
'(7A) No proceedings for an offence triable by virtue of this section may be instituted except by or with the consent of the Lord Advocate.
Ann Clwyd:
I feel like one of the creepy-crawlies mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). After sitting here for 15 hours, I resent having to move an amendment at this time in the morning--especially as so many hon. Members have made it clear that they resent clauses 5, 6 and 7 in particular. Whatever other reservations they may have about the Bill, they resent those clauses being tagged on to it, and I entirely agree with them. We should have had time to consult human rights organisations, for example, about the implications of the proposals in the Bill; but we have not had time even to read the Bill properly ourselves, apart from the aspects in which some of us have a special interest.
(7B) Before deciding whether to consent to proceedings for an offence triable by virtue of this section, the Lord Advocate shall have regard to the standards of respect for democracy and human rights in the country or territory where the result of the conspiracy was intended to occur and whether that occurrence was intended to combat injustice or oppression.'.
"the procedure for the trial of the offence in that country or territory, if it were the procedure for the trial of the offence in any jurisdiction in the United Kingdom, would not infringe the terms of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, agreed by the Council of Europe at Rome".
If my hon. Friend the Minister is not able to accept the amendment--gracious though he has been all evening, I have the feeling that that will probably be his attitude--it would be helpful if he could indicate that the criteria in the convention are the type of criteria that will affect the Attorney-General's decisions. This is more concrete, more direct and a better set of criteria than anything called public interest, whatever that may mean at any particular time.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |