Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Higgins: My Lords, we had noted the views of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation in relation to this amendment. I ask the

4 Jul 2000 : Column 1441

following simple question. Can the National Assembly for Wales do anything about this if it does not like something?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it can do two different things. Any amendments to Section 81 require that the National Assembly be consulted. It could happen after consultation. Amendments to Sections 85 and 86 of the Government of Wales Act require the consent of the Assembly. Section 81 is concerned with the way in which the Secretary of State for Wales reports on financial matters, whereas the other provisions require the consent of the Assembly.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 25:

    After Clause 19, insert the following new clause--


(".--(1) Any of the following may incur expenditure for the purpose of investing in the body mentioned in section 16--
(a) the Scottish Ministers,
(b) the Northern Ireland departments, and
(c) the National Assembly for Wales.
(2) Subsection (1)--
(a) shall have effect notwithstanding an enactment which restricts the activities of a person or body mentioned in that subsection to matters relating to a particular Part or area of the United Kingdom, and
(b) shall not be construed as preventing or restricting any action which a person or body has power to take without reliance on that subsection.
(3) The power under subsection (1) may be used only for the purpose of--
(a) the acquisition from the Treasury of shares of a kind which are required by the body's articles of association to be issued to the Treasury (and which may be transferred by the Treasury), and
(b) such other forms of investment (whether by the acquisition of assets, securities, rights or otherwise) as the Treasury may specify by order.
(4) An order under subsection (3)(b)--
(a) may relate generally to persons and bodies mentioned in subsection (1) or to one or more specified persons or bodies,
(b) may make different provision for different purposes,
(c) shall be made by statutory instrument, and
(d) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Government are introducing this new clause to provide the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland with the opportunity to invest in Partnerships UK. Clause 16 currently authorises the Treasury to incur expenditure for the purposes of the establishment of this body, investment in it and the making of other financial provision for it. The additional legislative provision is needed to permit the devolved authorities to invest in Partnerships UK plc because it will carry on business throughout the United Kingdom and, therefore, to an extent, beyond the legislative and executive competence of each devolved authority. Such

4 Jul 2000 : Column 1442

investment by the devolved administrations will therefore be completely in keeping with the UK-wide coverage of the new company.

The Government have consulted the relevant authorities in the devolved administrations. They have all welcomed the opportunity that the new clause will provide. I hope that will be welcomed in this House also. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 26:

    After Clause 22, insert the following new clause--


(".--(1) Before--
(a) issuing directions under section 5(2), or
(b) determining the form and content of accounts under section 9,
the Treasury shall consult a group of persons who appear to the Treasury to be appropriate to advise on financial reporting principles and standards.
(2) Before selecting a group for the purpose of subsection (1) the Treasury shall consult the Comptroller and Auditor General.
(3) Where a group is consulted under subsection (1) in a particular year, the Treasury shall arrange for the group to prepare a report for that year--
(a) summarising the activities of the group for the purpose of the consultation, and
(b) dealing with such other matters as the group consider appropriate.
(4) Where a report is prepared under subsection (3), the Treasury shall arrange for it to be laid before the House of Commons.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.

[Amendment No. 27, as an amendment to Amendment No. 26, not moved.]

On Question, Amendment No. 26 agreed to.

[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 29:

    Page 19, line 21, at end insert--

("( ) For the purpose of subsection (5)(a) and (b) the Treasury shall in particular--
(a) have regard to any relevant guidance issued by the Accounting Standards Board Limited or any other body prescribed for the purposes of section 256 of the Companies Act 1985 (accounting standards), and
(b) require the accounts to include, subject to paragraph (a), a statement of financial performance, a statement of financial position and a cash flow statement.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Terrorism Bill

6.13 p.m.

Read a third time.

Clause 1 [Terrorism: interpretation]:

Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 1:

    Page 1, line 7, after ("of") insert ("criminal").

4 Jul 2000 : Column 1443

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 to 8.

The present definition of terrorism contained in Clause 1 of the Bill was introduced on Report. On that occasion, the view was taken that the Government's then amendment was an improvement on the original version of the Bill which had arrived from the other place, but that time was required to think about it to see whether it could be improved still further. Challenge was therefore not made to the amendment at Report stage. However, notice was given that several amendments would be tabled to improve the definition further if it were thought possible and appropriate. The conclusion has been reached that the amendment could be significantly improved, and therefore amendments have been put down in order to do that.

The main defect in the present definition of "terrorism" as now in the Bill is that it brings action,

    "to influence the government",

into the definition even if the action involves no threat to the public. It is believed that that is too wide a definition, even in the case of a democratic government, and much more so in the case of oppressive and undemocratic governments.

The aim of a definition must be to include within it everything we want and to exclude everything we do not want. That has proved particularly troublesome in the case of the definition of terrorism, and it is clear that an ideal definition on which there could be complete consensus will not be reached. But it is believed that the amendments put down on the Marshalled List tighten up the definition and bring it closer to the ideal.

The key amendment in the group is Amendment No. 4. It removes any reference to influencing the government from the definition of terrorism. It makes the intimidation of the public or a section of the public an essential element in terrorism.

There is, however, one major exception, and that is covered by subsection (3) of Clause 1, as amended, as we propose, by Amendment No. 6. It is believed that any organisation which adopts murder as a method of operation, and does so for political, religious or ideological purposes, should be regarded as a terrorist organisation even if the public are not the targets of the killing. Therefore, it is believed that a campaign of assassination against members of a government is a terrorist campaign, even if that government are oppressive, and even if the campaign involves no threat to members of the public.

Subsection (3) as now drafted excludes any necessity to show an intention to influence a government or intimidate the public where the action in question involves firearms or explosives, but it is not believed that assassination by gun or bomb is worse than assassination by, for example, poison or strangling. On the other hand, it is not believed that the use of explosives, where there is no threat to life--for example, by blowing up television or radio

4 Jul 2000 : Column 1444

transmission towers when care has been taken to ensure there is no danger to individuals--is worse than other forms of terrorism.

Amendment No. 6 therefore widens subsection (3) by extending it to all methods of killing, but narrows subsection (3) by limiting it only to killing. It is believed that that makes subsection (3) better targeted than it is at present.

Amendment No. 3 deals with one problem which was raised during the course of my discussion with the Home Secretary last week when seeking to reach agreement on the issue. The Home Secretary stated that removing reference to "influencing" the Government was not enough because a terrorist group could blackmail the government, for example, for the purpose of obtaining the release of a member of its organisation held in a prison by threatening to poison the water supply. It may be that the Government, in order to avoid public panic, keeps that threat secret. It is suggested therefore that the terrorist threat cannot be said to intimidate the public because the public do not know.

That appeared to be a fair point. Amendment No. 3 therefore now deals with the problem by stating that a threat which is directed against the public can be terrorism even though the public do not know about it and are therefore not intimidated by the threat.

Amendment Nos. 2 and 8 are consequential.

Amendment Nos. 1 and 7 raise a different plight. It is possible to envisage some types of strike action, for example, which could cause a serious risk to health or to the safety of the public, or a section of the public. It is not thought that anything of that kind has actually happened in this country, but on occasions in the past the country has been quite close to it. One does not need to go as far back as the General Strike in 1926, but one could go back, for instance, to the miners' strike in 1973 and 1974. However, it is not thought that most people would have regarded the National Union of Mineworkers at that time as potentially a terrorist organisation, or Arthur Scargill as a terrorist, still less Joe Gormley.

It is proposed by Amendments Nos. 1 and 7 to limit the action covered by Clause 1 to criminal action only. It is believed that these amendments tighten up the definition of terrorism. It is believed that they simplify the definition by excluding the need to include any reference to governments. They restrict the definition of terrorism to the basic meaning; either a threat to the public or a section of the public, or an assassination campaign. It is also believed that these amendments do that without presenting any damage to the effectiveness of the Bill in fighting terrorism, internal or external, which is, of course, an objective with which my colleagues and I are in full support. I beg to move.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page