| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): The noble Lord will remember that we are not dealing with his amendment but with the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
Earl Russell: I therefore beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 104ZA.
Amendment No. 104ZA, as an amendment to Amendment No. 104, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 104.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 104A:
- Page 10, line 39, leave out Xinternational"
The noble Lord said: This is a consequential amendment. It was spoken to with Amendment No. 103B, which has been determined by the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 105 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 105A:
- Page 10, leave out line 42 to end of line 2 on page 11.
The noble Baroness said: I move Amendment No. 105A only to learn what the Government have to say in relation to Amendments Nos. 107 and 110. I hope to be reassured that these government amendments deal with concerns which were raised at Second Reading in your Lordships' House and which were the subject of considerable debate by honourable Members—including the Secretary of State's Back-Benchers— in another place. It was felt that the link is far too widely drawn. It could, albeit inadvertently, draw in entirely innocent individuals who may be members of a group which appears, on the face of it, and to some of its members, entirely bone fide, whereas in fact it is a front for something much more sinister.
I reserve my right to come back on these amendments. I beg to move Amendment No. 105A.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I must remind the Committee that, if the amendment is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendments Nos. 106 and 107.
Earl Russell: Before the Minister rises to reply, perhaps I may thank him very warmly for Amendment No. 110. It meets an undertaking that he gave to me at Second Reading and I should like to thank him.
Lord Rooker: I can assure the noble Baroness that all my honourable friends in the other place are delighted with these two amendments. I hope that the members of the Select Committee are also delighted.
An issue was raised in regard to family members. We believe that Amendment No. 107, by removing the words,
- Xa person who is a member of or belongs to"—
Lord Rooker: It is grouped with Amendment No. 105A.
Lord Elton: I am sorry. I failed to mark the grouping.
Lord Rooker: I am not moving it because it is not the lead amendment. I am only speaking to it at the moment. I was on a real roller there.
There were genuine concerns about the links described in Clause 21(2), where the definition clearly could be too wide. There have been examples in the media. Osama bin Laden's distant family relatives, about ten times removed—who are estranged from him, who have denounced him, who have nothing to do with him—could clearly be covered by paragraph (c). It cannot be right for the definition to be as wide as that.
If Amendment No. 107 is agreed to, paragraph (c) will read:
- Xhas links with an international terrorist group".
Amendment No. 110 seeks to insert a further paragraph below paragraph (c), which states:
- XFor the purposes of subsection (2)(c) a person has links with an international terrorist group only if he supports or assists it".
So the amendments seek to remove the remotest possible link—for example, connections through family, friends, school, business, or sitting next to someone on a bus—from the clause. It then goes on to define the link as someone who supports or assists a terrorist group.
I believe these two amendments will satisfy the concerns raised by the Select Committee, in the other place and in your Lordships' House in our earlier debates.
Baroness Buscombe: I am grateful to the Minister for that reassurance. We have got rid of what one might dare to call the weakest link. It gives us great pleasure to withdraw Amendment No. 105A and to welcome and support Amendments Nos. 107 and 110.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 106 not moved.]
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 107:
- Page 11, line 1, leave out Xa person who is a member of or belongs to"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 109A not moved.]
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 110:
- Page 11, line 8, at end insert—
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 110A:
The noble Lord said: This is a consequential amendment. It was spoken to with Amendment No. 103B and determined by the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 111 not moved.]
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 [Deportation, removal, &c.]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 112:
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment which seeks to define the meaning of Clause 22(1). As currently expressed in the Bill, the words refer to,
I have read everything that has been written by the Government in relation to this clause, and on every occasion they have referred to the Article 3 prohibition on removing an individual to a regime which would subject him to the risk of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or the death penalty. In relation to the practical consideration, it has always been illustrated by the difficulties of deporting a detainee back to a particular country where he wants to go. I have not heard any other examples given. Instead of leaving this rather vague form of wording in this clause and in the linked part of Clause 23, the Government should spell out whether they have in mind any other area—other than Article 3 and other than travel arrangements.
My fear is this. If the wording is left as Xa practical consideration", the Government may say to a detainee: XAll right, you want to go back to a rogue state but, unfortunately, no plane flies there directly. You would have to change in Paris, or wherever. Therefore, we cannot deport you and we are going to subject you to indefinite detention". Is it the position that, if there is no direct flight, the detainee will remain subject to the provision in this clause? I just want to hear the answer to that point. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith: Perhaps I may return to the wording in Clause 22(1) as it stands. It has been made clear by the Government that, where someone is a threat to national security and we cannot prosecute or extradite that person to a country that can prosecute, the Government's preference is to remove the person from the United Kingdom. Indeed, we currently do all that we can to find ways in which a person can be removed to his or her own country, or to a safe third country, consistently with our international obligations. That determination to find avenues of removal will not be diminished in any way by the taking of the detention powers in the Bill. Only after all the avenues for the removal of a suspected terrorist have been exhausted shall we look to fall back on the powers in Clauses 22 and 23.
As Clause 22(1) states, there are two particular types of barrier to removal: legal and practical. I draw the attention of the Committee to the words in Clause 22(1):
The Government believe that the wording in the Bill as drafted captures the barriers, which are the barriers that exist. To change that wording would add nothing and could be disadvantageous. That is obviously not to say that the noble Lord is not right in identifying, as his amendment seeks to do, the two particular circumstances that arise at present. It is certainly not the case that the clause would operate merely because the only way to get to the country for deportation was to change planes in Paris. It is not about direct flights. Indeed, the situation at present, as I understand it, is that there are circumstances where people are removed and where there has to be a somewhat more circuitous route to get to the country where they have to go. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, on that point.
The first part of the amendment takes its wording from Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights as the first ground. That is the ground that is the present impediment to removal on legal grounds. But there is the possibility that our international obligations might to some extent change. I know of nothing at the moment that might bring that about. If those international obligations prevented the preferred course of deportation, then the wording would cover that. But there is nothing that I am aware of at present that is envisaged by that. I hope that the noble Lord will be content with that assurance and will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
X( ) For the purposes of subsection (2)(c) a person has links with an international terrorist group only if he supports or assists it."
Page 11, leave out lines 12 and 13.
Page 11, line 24, leave out from Xterrorist" to end of line 29 and insert Xif—
(a) his removal from the United Kingdom would violate international obligations not to subject him to the risk of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or the death penalty, or
(b) travel by him from the United Kingdom is not feasible."
Xa point of law which wholly or partly relates to an international agreement, or . . . a practical consideration",
as reasons why a terrorist cannot be removed from the United Kingdom.
6.30 p.m.
Xthe action cannot result in his removal from the United Kingdom because of",
one barrier or the other. It is a strong obligation: it is not that removal is not desirable but that he cannot be removed for that reason.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page