Annex A
1. Letter from the Home Secretary
to Rt Hon David Davis MP and Mr Mark Oaten MP
COUNTER-TERRORISM
BILL
Thank you for agreeing to meet to discuss the
forthcoming Counter-terrorism Bill. As the Prime Minister has
said, we very much hope it will be possible to proceed by consensus.
I thought you might find it helpful to have
an outline of what we currently envisage will be in the Bill.
I should stress that these are the proposals drawn up in advance
of the events of 7 July. As the Prime Minister indicated in his
statement on Monday, we are discussing with the police and intelligence
agencies whether there are any further powers which they need
in the light of those events and the subsequent investigation.
We may therefore need to add to the measures currently proposed;
we will continue to consult with you as work progresses.
Our aim is to ensure that the police and intelligence
agencies have all the powers which they require to enable them
to deal effectively with terrorism. Our priority is always to
prosecute if at all possible. For this reason, and as we made
clear in Parliament before the General Election, we are proposing
that the Counter-terrorism Bill should create new criminal offences.
The first of these concerns acts preparatory
to terrorism. This has been widely discussed. As you know, in
suspected terrorist cases the police and intelligence agencies
seek to intervene early to protect the public. This may mean that
the precise details of the planned terrorist act are not known—indeed,
the terrorists themselves may not have decided exactly how they
will act. However, there may be clear evidence of an intention
to commit a serious terrorist act. For example, instructions on
how to build a bomb, evidence of intention to acquire chemicals
and evidence that terrorist related websites have been accessed.
It may be clear that there is very serious criminal intent. The
proposed new offence is designed to address this.
The second proposed new offence relates
to indirect incitement to commit terrorist acts. Direct
incitement to commit a violent or criminal act is already an offence
in our law. We now want also to cover indirect incitement to terrorism.
We intend that the new offence should capture the expression of
sentiments which do not amount to direct incitement to perpetrate
acts of violence, but which are uttered with the intent that they
should encourage others to commit, or attempt to commit, terrorist
acts.
This will enable the UK to ratify the Council
of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism. The convention
requires parties to the Convention to have an offence of "public
provocation to commit a terrorist offence". Article 5 of
the Convention defines "public provocation" as "making
a message available to the public with the intent to incite the
commission of a terrorist offence . . . whether or not directly
advocating terrorist offences".
The third new offence is concerned with
providing or receiving training in the use of hazardous substances
and in other methods or techniques for terrorist purposes. This
covers training provided or received in the UK and abroad.
Again, our aim is to enable the authorities to prosecute those
who are clearly intent on terrorist acts before they actually
perpetrate them.
This new offence is also in line with the Council
of Europe Convention which requires parties to the Convention
to create an offence of providing training "in the making
or use of explosives, firearms or other weapons or noxious or
hazardous substances, or in other specific methods or techniques,
for the purpose of carrying out or contributing to the commission
of a terrorist offence, knowing that the skills provided are intended
to be used for this purpose" (Article 7). Section 54 of the
Terrorism Act 2000 (TACT) covers most of the requirements of this
provision, apart from those relating to hazardous substances and
methods or techniques. It is therefore proposed that a new offence
should be created to address this gap.
The definitions of hazardous substances will
be based on other international conventions. It is proposed to
establish a broad offence that incorporates training in any methods
or techniques, but is limited by the provisos that the training
has, first, to have a potential terrorist use and, secondly, be
given or received with the intention that it should be used for
terrorist purposes.
Although the Convention only refers to providing
training, it is proposed that the new offence should also capture
receiving training in the making or use of hazardous substances
or in specific methods or techniques. This would bring the new
offence in line with the offences in Section 54 of TACT.
We also want to use the Bill to make a number
of other legislative changes to close loopholes and improve operational
efficiency. These are as follows.
— Introducing "all premises"
warrants in terrorist legislation. This will enable the police
to obtain search warrants covering any property owned or controlled
by terrorist suspects.
— Giving the Security Service the
ability to seek warrants authorising activities overseas. Currently
the Service's powers are limited and it has to rely on the Secret
Intelligence Service (SIS) acting on its behalf.
— Allowing a one day period of grace
on warrants under Section 7 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994
if a person enters the United Kingdom. This will ensure that
we do not lose coverage if a target comes to the United Kingdom.
— Allowing initial cash seizure
hearings to take place in closed session. This would allow
hearings concerned with seizure of terrorist cash to be heard
in closed court session, as recommended by the Newton Committee
in their report on the workings of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and
Security Act 2001.
— Ratification of the UN Convention
on the Suppression of Nuclear Terrorism. Various minor technical
changes are required to enable us to ratify this Convention.
— Amendments to the Explosive Substances
Act 1883. These amendments would cover the loophole that it
is not an offence to plan an explosion which will take place overseas.
— Extending terrorism stop and search
powers to cover bays and estuaries.
— Increased flexibility of the proscription
regime. We want to prevent organisations evading the proscription
regime by changing their name.
— Improved search powers at ports.
We want to make it expressly clear that examining officers
at ports have powers to search vehicles as part of their examining
officer functions.
In addition, we intend to include an amendment
which will ensure that there is a peg in the Bill to enable Parliament
to consider again the issue of control orders, as I committed
to Parliament during the passage of the Prevention of Terrorism
Act 2005.
I will be happy to elaborate on all of these
when we meet.
As you may know, I am planning to make a statement
to the House next week and will take the opportunity to bring
the House up to date on our plans for the legislation. In the
meantime, I will arrange for a copy of this letter to be placed
in the Libraries of both Houses.
Rt Hon Charles Clarke MP
15 July 2005
| 
