Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40
- 59)
TUESDAY 17 FEBRUARY 1998
RT HON
JACK STRAW
MP and MR DENIS
EVANS
40. I take that point entirely. There is a difference,
is there not, between a right, which I share with you, that no-one
should take away in a democracy the right to belong to such organisations,
but is it desirable, that is my basic question? Is it desirable
for a judge to sit on the bench carrying out his role being a
member of a secret society?
(Mr Straw) It is desirable that a declaration
is made. It is not undesirable that people are members of freemasons.
If I was to say that I would be denying the point I shared with
Mr Howarth. People have got an absolute right to belong to these
societies. If they have then it is a matter for them to make that
decision. There are many, many freemasons, I am absolutely certain,
in each branch of the criminal justice system who perform their
duties with absolute fairness and impeccably, no question about
that. The proof that people are able to combine their membership
of the freemasons with membership of one or other of these branches
of the criminal justice system is there for people to see. There
is no doubt about that. The issue is is there something to be
worried about? Yes, because of its secretiveness. That was brought
out by this inquiry last year. Should we do something about it?
Yes, we should make it a declarable interest in the way which
we propose.
Chairman: We are going to turn to the prevention
of terrorism. Mr Winnick again.
Mr Winnick
41. You are intending, Home Secretary, to bring
in permanent legislation, are you not, on anti-terrorism? If so,
when can we expect the measure to come before the House of Commons?
(Mr Straw) Sorry?
42. When can we expect the measure to come before
the House of Commons?
(Mr Straw) I made a statement to the
House on 31 October last year setting out my broad proposals.
I am intending to bring forward a consultative document on the
proposals in the next couple of months and then it is a matter
for my colleagues to determine whether we can get legislation
next year or the year after. I ought to tell you, however, that
meanwhile it will be necessary obviously to renew the Prevention
of Terrorism Act. I made that clear last October.
43. Given the present situation, the crisis
which may or may not lead to military conflict, are you satisfied,
Home Secretary, that all possible measures are now being taken
to combat any terrorism which may arise if military action is
taken by the allies?
(Mr Straw) Yes, I am. You will forgive
me for not going into details. I am satisfied.
44. I do not want the details, I just wanted
to have your answer on the question.
(Mr Straw) I am satisfied that we are
taking as many measures as possible to do this.
45. Was the Home Office consulted by the American
Embassy before they took the action they have taken to protect
their Embassy building?
(Mr Straw) If you will forgive me, it
is not usual practice to go into detail on matters like that.
I do not wish to set a precedent.
46. What do you say, Home Secretary, to the
concern which has been expressed by governments abroad, in the
Arab world particularly, that people in this country who have
managed to secure residence, asylum, of one means or another are
involved in terrorist acts, it has not been alleged for one moment
against anything in the United Kingdom but nevertheless are in
part conspiring to commit terrorism abroad, usually in their country
of origin? Do you take these allegations seriously?
(Mr Straw) Yes. There is a certain degree
of misapprehension about the position in this country. We have
a different and more thorough legal system, shall I say, than
other countries and people are free to go about their business
here unless and until there is a suspicion that they have committed
a criminal offence or that in other respects it is possible for
me as Home Secretary to declare that their presence here is not
conducive to the public good and then to require them to leave,
although that raises another story. The law has had to be amended
recently in the light of the Jahal case before the European Court
of Human Rights. However, we have habeas corpus which some
other countries do not. I think that is a very important protection
for people's civil liberties. It inevitably means that we cannot
be as pre-emptory as other countries may be to remove people either
from the country as a whole or from liberty as they can. All that
said, we accept that there is a gap in the law, that there is
not an offence at the moment in this country to conspire to commit
terrorist acts abroad. The previous administration sought to deal
with that and the Bill fell at dissolution last March. We wish
to fill that legislative gap as soon as possible.
47. I understand the case that you mentioned
which went before the European Court of Human Rights because you
may remember that one of my own constituents, Raghbir Singh, was
affected by that otherwise he would probably have remained in
prison for a long time to come. When the massacre took place of
foreign citizens in Egypt, a large number of whom were UK citizens,
the reaction, if I remember, of the Egyptian Government was to
put some blame on the United Kingdom and they said that we were
harbouring people who were in fact involved in promoting terrorism.
Did the Foreign Office receive any representation from the Egyptian
Government which was passed on to the Home Office?
(Mr Straw) We were certainly made aware
of the feelings of the Egyptian ministers and President. I took
those remarks to be made at a time of very great shock by Egyptian
ministers. It is not the case that we are harbouring terrorists
for a second. Where there is evidence then action can be taken,
including by declaring their presence not conducive to the public
good, although in some cases there is then an issue of which country
they are removed to. There are big issues there. Sometimes countries
abroad may find it hard to appreciate that someone who they regard
as a very serious opponent of their regime has committed no offence
here, and they have not, and may too be applying for asylum under
the 1951 Convention. That is something that we have to accept.
The idea that the United Kingdom is a haven for Islamic terrorists
is totally unjustified and very unhelpful. A lot of these countries
also know from other ways what action we are taking to deal with
this matter in the best possible way.
48. I accept entirely your statement that the
United Kingdom is not a safe haven in any way whatsoever for terrorists,
never has been and hopefully never will be. Nevertheless, there
is always the possibility, as you will no doubt concede, that
people could come into this country under false pretences and
engage in the sort of actions which cannot possibly be tolerated
if it was known to the authorities. What I am asking you to accept,
Home Secretary, is this: instead of generalisations from foreign
governments, be it the Egyptian Government after the terrible
massacre or indeed any other foreign government, are names actually
submitted? Do I work on the reasonable assumption that if names
are given by foreign governments then there is indeed a thorough
investigation by the appropriate people in the United Kingdom?
(Mr Straw) You will forgive me, Mr Winnick,
if I do not go into operational details of the kind of co-operation
that takes place between law enforcement agencies in this country
and those abroad except to say that there is a high degree of
co-operation.
Mr Winnick: I think that answers my question
as far as it is possible for to go, thank you.
Mr Howarth
49. I realise, Home Secretary, that it is difficult
to frame legislation in dealing with those who have sought refuge
in this country and then seek to disturb relationships between
this country and our allies by fomenting disorder back at home
as it were. May I suggest to you that I think this is clearly
a case where the British public would be perfectly happy to rely
upon the discretion of the Home Secretary and that you should
not be afraid of accepting the burden of that responsibility although
you may have to account for it. It may be a better way than trying
to put this into legislation.
(Mr Straw) I am grateful to you for that,
Mr Howarth.
50. I have every confidence in you.
(Mr Straw) Thank you very much, I will
remember that if I may.
Chairman
51. It may come in very useful some time.
(Mr Straw) There is a strong case for
extending the law of conspiracy to conspiracy to commit acts abroad,
there is no doubt about that. Lord Lloyd in his review of the
law on terrorism strongly endorsed an extension of the law in
respect of conspiracy and actually called it "the most significant
measure which could be taken against those who conspire here to
commit terrorism acts abroad". We are not in any doubt about
the case for that and we will implement the legislation as quickly
as possible. Colleagues are agreed that we should legislate, it
is simply a question of finding a legislative opportunity. That
is not an alternative to action under the 1971 Immigration Act
but a complement to it. There is this problem, however, with my
power to declare people's presence here not conducive to the public
good if they are here. That is you have to have somewhere to remove
them to. Normally you would want to remove them back to the country
of origin but if they have legitimate grounds for claiming that
if they are removed there then they will be, say, sentenced to
death or shot in an alleyway, then there are the most serious
problems and they may in any event apply for asylum. That is a
difficulty there and it is not one that can be brushed lightly
aside. That is different from if we get information, as we do
with some regularity, about people who wish to come to this country
to foment trouble. They can be excluded by fiat and they
are, there is no right of appeal and no issue of asylum arises
because they are not in the jurisdiction. It is when they get
here that the difficulty arises.
52. Further to the point made by Mr Winnick,
can I just draw your attention—I do not ask you to comment
on this and I have sent you a copy although you may not have seen
it yet—to an interview with some opponent of the Egyptian
Government which appeared in Der Spiegel in the third week
of January who appears to justify the events in Luxor. It is a
very ambiguous interview indeed, in fact some may think it is
not all that ambiguous.
(Mr Straw) Thank you, I will have a look
at it.
Mr Winnick
53. I was not aware of that interview but it
does show the seriousness of the allegations made which I was
referring to by the Egyptian Government. Although perhaps not
in itself a matter for deportation it must cause tremendous concern
amongst British people, and even more so amongst the loved ones
of those who were murdered not so long ago, that some creature
in Britain who has come to this country should actually go out
of his way to justify such a massacre.
(Mr Straw) I accept that. The idea that
we are wilfully harbouring terrorists is completely untrue.
54. Yes, I accept that.
(Mr Straw) We are taking a great deal
of action to deal with the terrorist threat.
Chairman
55. Turning back for a moment to the Prevention
of Terrorism Act, you have said that it will need to be reviewed
this year, possibly next year, in its existing form. Presumably
there is nothing to stop some of the practices that are now regarded
as unacceptable from being changed?
(Mr Straw) Which do you have in mind?
56. For example the failure to record interviews
with terrorist suspects. We must have learned by now that it is
desirable from everybody's point of view that an active record
exists.
(Mr Straw) That is changing. There are
proposals—I am trying to recollect offhand whether they
have come into force—for the silent videoing of interviews
in Northern Ireland. I can certainly let the Committee have a
note on this. I know that Dr Mowlam is anxious to see improvements
in the system and I think, although I speak from recollection,
that some have been introduced.
57. I am not talking about silent videoing.
(Mr Straw) I announced to the House in
any event on 31 October that there were now no exclusion orders
extant, so that is one change that has really helped.
58. The point I am making is there is nothing
to stop you indicating to the police concerned, indeed they may
have already voluntarily gone down this road, that you expect
interviews with terrorist suspects to be properly recorded.
(Mr Straw) I will come back to you about
that because I do not want to give an answer on which I am not
fully accurate.3 My certain knowledge is that in most cases they
are but I will look at the practice. Let me say there is also
the issue of a judicial element in the extension of the tension
process.
3 See Annex B.
59. That was my next point.
(Mr Straw) We as a Government and as
a party are committed to changing the system. However, a move
to judicial authority would require primary legislation. That
would form part of the changes which we propose in the long-term
Anti Terrorism Bill.
Chairman: Thank you. Can we now turn to privacy.
Mr Howarth.
| 
