| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hogg: It is extremely difficult to tackle that definition. For example, if the Kurds in north Iraq decide to embark on a military campaign against Iraqis in that region, they might use artillery to shell villages. Such explosions would fall within the classification covered by clause 1, but are we really to say that people who support
the Kurds in those circumstances should be treated as though they were aiding and abetting terrorists? That would be the effect of the Bill.
Mr. Lidington: I hope that the Minister will deal with that point in his concluding remarks. It is another matter for more detailed examination in Committee.
Mr. Maginnis: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), does not he recognise that ordinary, conventional warfare conducted according to the Geneva convention is one thing, and that terrorism--which by and large picks on the weakest element in society to create terror--is another? Does not that difference apply to the example offered by the right hon. and learned Gentleman?
Mr. Lidington: The hon. Gentleman makes an effective point. As a country, we have agreed already that some offences--hijacking is the most high-profile example--are to be deplored and that they should be subject to criminal sanctions at an international level. That applies regardless of any sympathy that we might have for the motives of those who feel impelled to take such courses of action. I accept that these are not easy matters to define, but the Government, while preserving civil liberties, also have a clear duty to consider what measures are needed to protect the public from a genuine and serious threat.
Mr. Tom King: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) is worried about the drafting difficulties of clause 1, but does not my hon. Friend agree that we must ensure that we are able to deal with the problem of the extraterritorial organisation of terrorism? Such activity is deplored by all hon. Members.
Mr. Lidington: I agree completely with my right hon. Friend.
My only personal exposure to the immediate impact of terrorist action was at Brighton in October 1984. No Conservative Member who was there will ever forget the scenes. However, it is sobering for anyone with such vivid memories of Brighton to reflect on the experiences of people such as the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. He and his constituents have had to endure a campaign of vicious and relentless terrorism that lasted for decades.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke):
We have had an interesting discussion this evening, which has accelerated in the past hour or so. I shall try to deal directly with some of the points made in the debate.
The Bill is predicated on the belief in the proposition that the threat of terrorism continues, and is still a force which exists today which must be dealt with.
In the light of some of the cuddly remarks made about animal liberation, which I was not going to address this evening, I will quote from Professor Paul Wilkinson's inquiry into legislation against terrorism--a document which is in the Library of the House, and which sets out the kind of threat about which we are talking. After dealing with nuclear smuggling and other attractive manifestations of terrorism, he goes on to refer to animal rights groups. The reports says:
The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) referred to the global threat--the Japanese gas attack, the US Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam and the continuing issues with some forces in Ireland. The reason for the Bill is that terrorism continues to exist, and we would be betraying our duty to the people who elected all of us if we did not make sure that we put in place a system of law to deal with those threats.
Mr. McDonnell:
When will the criminal law apply, and when will this proposed legislation apply? My understanding of the Bill and its definitions is that it would apply to the Stop the City campaign, in which property was seriously damaged. Would it apply to those protesters in Seattle--as well as their supporters--where there was violence and damage to property and individuals? Would the Bill apply to those groups, or would they be subject to the criminal law?
Mr. Clarke:
I assure my hon. Friend that I will address that point in detail, along with the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn).
I want to place on record that I welcome the support of the Opposition Front Bench, the Liberal Democrats and the Ulster Unionist party for the Second Reading of the Bill. I have sat throughout this debate--apart from a couple of very brief comfort breaks--and, according to the notes I have taken, about two thirds of those who have
spoken support the Second Reading. There have been some serious issues on process and the question of the Special Standing Committee, but about two thirds have said that they support Second Reading. That is because they recognise that special measures are needed to protect the public and to work within the international framework.
Mr. Simon Hughes:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clarke:
I will in a moment. I shall just deal with the important procedural points that have been raised. First, people have raised concerns about the Human Rights Act 1998, which they are perfectly entitled to do. However, it must be emphasised that my right hon. Friend's statement, which appears on the front of the Bill, was not made ill advisedly. The statement reads:
Mr. Corbyn:
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Clarke:
No. I will give way after I have dealt with the procedural points, first to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).
Secondly, we do not favour using the Special Standing Committee procedure for the Bill. There has been extensive consultation on the provisions via the report of Lord Lloyd of Berwick in 1996 and the Government's consultation in December 1998, to which there were 80 responses. We published an analysis of the responses earlier today; copies of the responses can be made available if that would be helpful.
These provisions do not differ significantly from the proposals in the consultation paper. While some may be considered to be controversial, I do not view them as particularly difficult or technical. I therefore do not think that there is a need to adopt the Special Standing Committee procedure, as proposed by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, to whom I shall now give way.
Mr. Hughes:
I understand the Government's position that there is widespread support for a Bill. But the view of many people who responded to the consultation was that either the Bill should not be extended beyond domestic legislation or that the definition as now proposed was not acceptable. The definition is different from that contained in Lord Lloyd's proposal--it has changed. Surely there is a case for hearing evidence and getting the measure right rather than pushing it through and then discovering that we have got it badly wrong.
"The majority of those involved in the animal welfare lobby keep firmly within the law and abhor violence."
That is their creed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Audrey Wise) has described.
"However, a cluster of small groups such as the so-called Justice Department of the Animal Liberation Front, and the Animal Rights Militia, have crossed the threshold from extra-parliamentary protest and demonstrations to what can only be described as acts of terrorism; incendiary attacks on shops and other premises and letter and parcel bombs. In 1990 animal rights extremists used car bombs in two attacks on scientists, one in Bristol and one in Porton Down. In the former case the scientist was unhurt, but a 13 month old baby was injured by shrapnel. There were major firebomb attacks against shops in Newport, Isle of Wight, York and Harrogate, in 1994. Millions of pounds worth of damage has been caused over the past few years alone.
The report gives the example of police finding a bomb factory in the home of one activist, with material for 100 incendiary weapons and a list of potential targets. The target list included an agriculture college, slaughterhouses, the Milk Marketing Board, food manufacturers and horse breeders. The report states:
There is continuing evidence that terrorist violence by animal rights extremists remains a threat in many parts of the country."
"It is clear that a campaign of this kind would have endangered life as well as property."
I commend the document to the House. We are dealing not with cuddly individuals or organisations, but with serious issues.
"In my view the provisions of the Terrorism Bill are compatible with the Convention rights."
I am not referring to my right hon. Friend's professional expertise, which is well known, but, on the basis of all the advice that we have had, the Bill is compatible with the 1998 Act--it would not have been drafted in this form were it not.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |