Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Rooker: The noble Baroness may not like it, but that is not consistent with the Government's policy of trying to make a success of the peace process. For reasons that I have explained more than once, we are not going to return to the situation before September 11th. We have had to derogatesome might use the word Xbreach"a convention that this country has been signed up to, under governments of both parties, for 50 years. We have done that openly and we know our reasons for doing so. We did not like doing it but we did it because that is the best way in which we can establish a legislative system for locking up people whom we cannot remove.
I agree that other parts of the Bill, which go wider than the detention of non-UK citizens, apply much more widely. If the noble Baroness, Lady Park, wants to attack them, we shall defend them.
Baroness Blatch: I make two points. First, the Real IRA is not signed up to the peace process. Secondly, the noble Lord said a moment ago that all non-UK citizens would be caught by the Bill. That is simply not true.
Lord Rooker: I am not sure whether I said Xnon-EU" or Xnon-UK". We are not going to lock up UK citizens. I state that non-UK citizens are involved; that is why we are using the immigration rules. It may be that if members of Al'Qaeda end up in this country and are non-UK citizens, they will be covered by the provisions. We have laboured that point on several occasions.
Lord Tebbit: Is the Minister aware that he has greatly enhanced his reputation as a man who speaks the truth, even when it is not palatable to his colleagues? He did that when he explained that this whole debate is based around the Government's policy of wishing to continue to appease Irish republicans, including violent Irish republicans. That is the truth of the matter.
Lord Rooker: I have considerable respect for the noble Lord, but that is not a fair description of what I said.
There is not much more that I can say on this matter. The issue is, as noble Lords will accept, narrowwe want to exclude from the Bill's detention powers domestic terrorism, if I can use that phrase, when it is conducted by what we may call domestic citizens. That is because we have other ways of dealing with it. The mechanism in this context for dealing with international terrorists would not be suitable or consistent with our general policies for dealing with our home-grown terrorists.
I have also said that we would not be able to derogate from the ECHR. It may be that people want us to go much furtherto tear it up, get rid of Article 3 and pull out completely. However, that is not the Government's policy.
I conclude, although I have not convinced noble Lords opposite, by saying that there are good logical grounds for setting out the definition of international terrorism in the way that the Bill does. I therefore invite the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord Glentoran: Before the Minister concludes, will he confirm that the real reason that he wishes to hold his ground on this amendment is that Her Majesty's Government do not wish to use the power of derogation from the ECHR in any way that would embarrass their relationship with the Prime Minister of Ireland?
Lord Rooker: I cannot confirm anything of the kind, and I cannot really add to what I have already said.
Lord McNally: During the heated exchange at the beginning of this debate I said something very unworthy about the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. I would not like that to stay uncorrected in Hansard and I withdraw it absolutely and unconditionally.
Lord Waddington: That is very gracious of the noble Lord.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I have listened with fascinated horror as this debate has developed. I thought that the amendment involved a fairly limited, reasonable and coolly considered matter. We need to get back to the amendment and away from the enormously emotive and much wider matter, which is completely irrelevant to the point that I sought to raise in the amendment. That wider matter involves the attempt to solve the problems of Northern Ireland. That is the area into which we have trespassedI use that word deliberately. I regret that we allowed ourselves to be distracted in that way, but not because anything that was said was inherently wrong. As I said earlier, I was seeking to remove from the Bill a distinction that I regard as invidious and unnecessary. I also said that the amendment would not affect the Bill's core principles.
To pick up one of the Minister's points, I entirely accept that it is right that anyone who is a UK citizen and who undertakes a terrorist act in the United Kingdom should be dealt with by domestic law. I have no difficulty with that or with the fact that the Bill sets
out to establish that non-UK citizens in terrorist organisations should be dealt with under the immigration laws, if that is a necessary part of the process. The amendment does not affect that arrangement one iota.I am grateful to those who spoke in support of my amendmentthe majority of those who spoke. That gives me some encouragement. It saddened me, however, that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, spoke in the way that he did at the start of the debate. The purpose of debates in this place is to inform ourselves of the issues that are under discussion. It is at the end of such debates that one should make a judgment about how one should go on; one should not do so before such debates.
I add, in parenthesis, that there three main stages in a Bill's passage through this place. That is supposed to involve a filtration process that eliminates some matters. Some noble Lords appear to think that tabling amendments, voting on them and disposing of matters in Committee is improper, but that is a regrettable view. I have always thought that we should be able to dispose of matters if we have reached a clear decision in Committee and that we should leave the Bill's later stages clear so that we can deal with those matters that are more controversial. That seems to be an entirely proper way of going on.
I hear what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has said, as I heard what he said at Second Reading. I am not surprised. On reflection and in light of the debate, I hope that the Members of his party will consider that they have reason to go against their narrow practice in this matter. Interesting though the debate has been, the breadth of opinions that have been expressed have supported the amendment. Therefore, I shall test the opinion of the Committee.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 103B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 149; Not-Contents, 139.
Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 104:
Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |