Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Earl of Onslow: Before the Minister replies, would she care to look behind her to see whether she has any support?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is always extremely kind.
Several Members of the Committee, in discussing Clause 110, have reflected on the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. On Second Reading my noble friend Lord Rooker said that he was examining the four recommendations and that we would do our best to meet the spirit of those recommendations. I believe that he went on to say that the four recommendations were reasonable and that if we could not meet them we would need good reasons for not doing so.
The Government are still reflecting not only on what was said by the Select Committee but on what is being said today. No Member of this Committee has listened to what has been said without realising that there is a formidable power of argument that has considerable concerns about these clauses. We undertake that we shall consider carefully everything that is said, not only in the report but in Committee today.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is right that history is important, but so is the future. The noble Earl used characteristically colourful language to remind us of the events of September 11th. However, we need to reflect on the power of international terrorists to wreak appalling ends on innocent people.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, also accused the Government of using what he called a bandwagon of emotion about September 11th to Xsmuggle in"I quote his wordsthe measures. That was unfortunate phraseology and I hope that he will reflect on his remarks. The Government do not believe that September 11th can be so easily put to one side. It was not a blip in the history of terrorism. As many Members of the Committee said, what happened on September 11th was a real change in the way international terrorists work. As we know, there is organised terrorism in the world, and it can be horriblydevastatinglyeffective. It crosses international barriers and it tries to exploit any loophole that it can find in the workings of our international institutions. In the Bill we seek to stop terrorists having the chance to exploit those loopholes and to put positive powers in the hands of those who really are in a position to challenge the terrorists.
Viscount Bledisloe: Before the Minister leaves that point, and in light of the criticisms that she has made of my language, will she explain how a power to create criminal offences and a punishment of less than two years is going to assist in the fight against international terrorism?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I was going to explain why the measures are in the Bill. The point about terrorist offences not being covered by offences involving sentences of two years is something of a false analogy. There is a two-year limitation because that is what the power in the European Communities Act 1972 for the first pillarthe enabling provisionstates. Subsection (7) contains the power to create offences with longer sentences.
I shall explain why the measures are in the Bill. That will enable us to discuss the amendments. Amendments Nos. 126B and 126C, which are Liberal Democrat amendments, would, taken separately, negate the entire purpose of Clause 110. There may be a problem with the double negative, but I suspect that that is just a drafting problem.
Amendment No. 126D, which is also a Liberal Democrat amendment, would limit the enabling powers that will be conferred by Clause 110 to the implementation of just a small part of the EU's action plan against terrorism. The EU's framework decision on combating terrorism will create common definitions of terrorist offences and impose common penalties across the EU. That is to be welcomed, but it is only a very small part of the EU's fight against terrorism. The EU is taking action to tackle terrorism across the board through rapid and effective judicial co-operation and swift action to freeze the assets of terrorists and by allowing our law enforcement agencies to work together in joint investigative teams.
I am grateful to Members of the Committee for recognising our commitment to implement the 1995 and 1996 extradition conventions by the end of this year. I hope that they also recognise the importance of
the other measures that have been taken through the EU on anti-terrorism, including the framework decision on combating terrorism.I turn to Amendment No. 126E, which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. That amendment would restrict the relevant powers to measures that deal specifically with terrorism. However, for practical purposes it is not possible to separate out terrorism from other forms of serious crime. The point is well illustrated by the draft framework decision on asset freezing. That would allow mutual recognition of freezing orders concerning serious crimes, including terrorism, drug trafficking and money laundering. It cannot have escaped the attention of any Member of the Committeewe have discussed this in the Housethat drug trafficking has been connected, as a source of finance, with the terrorist organisation in Afghanistan. It is enormously difficultI should say that it is impossibleto separate the two matters in the way the noble Lord proposes.
Lord Waddington: Surely it is possible to separate xenophobia and terrorism? If the Minister reads Title VI as a whole and the whole of Article 29, that should make it clear that the power to legislate by delegated legislation includes a power to deal with, for instance, xenophobia. What on earth has that got to do with the present emergency or with terrorism?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The amendment involves separating out terrorism. My sole point is that it is enormously difficult to separate out issues such as drug trafficking or trafficking in human beings. We have discussed that many times in the House. I thought that most of us were united in the view that such criminal activity, as it relates to terrorism, becomes part and parcel of terrorist activity itself.
Lord Waddington: Yes, but surely not part and parcel of xenophobia. Why do the Government have to take in the Bill the power to legislate through delegated legislation to deal with xenophobia?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I shall take further advice on the point involving xenophobia, which clearly considerably exercises the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. However, I do not think that that point undermines the main thrust of my argument about other terrorist activities.
Our efforts in relation to trafficking in drugs or individualsI was discussing those examplescould be vital in securing terrorist assets, which would otherwise be dissipated or destroyed. The amendment would restrict regulations under the new clause
Lord Goodhart: So far as freezing the assets of terrorists is concerned, is it really likely that anything will be added to the provisions that are already in Part 2?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The point that I am trying to makeclearly not as successfully as I had thoughtis that Amendment No. 126E seeks to limit this part of the Bill solely to terrorism. The Government do not believe that it is possible to define terrorism in a way that would distinguish it from activities related to it. I have referred in particular to the crimes of trafficking in drugs or people because we know that they are connected with terrorism. The Government do not believe that it is possible to separate out those matters in the way the amendment proposes.
The Earl of Onslow: Is the Minister therefore saying that terrorism means any crime? That is what she seems to be saying. If one cannot separate terrorism from anything, Xterrorism" could mean anything that the Government want it to mean. I do not think that that is a very good idea.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I did not hear the first part of the noble Earl's point.
The Earl of Onslow: As I understood the Minister, she said that one cannot separate terrorism and define it. Ergo, that means that we are taking powers to deal with any crime. That is the logic of what she said. I thought that we were trying to define matters involving terrorism as closely as we could because, in relation to terrorism, some of us will reluctantly go along with emergency legislation. However, we will not go along with general broad-sweep definitions or her argument that she cannot define terrorism and that it has to include other matters.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My point is that other crimes fund terrorism. To try to separate out terrorism in the way the amendment proposes is not a practical option. That is a relatively simple point. The noble Earl may disagree with me, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, does. But the Government's view is that it is not possible to separate out the matters in a practical sense because the other crimes are the source of revenue for terrorists.
Lord Waddington: Is the Minister seriously saying that it is necessary to take power to change our criminal law in almost any respect in order to further the fight against terrorism? I do not have a fixation about xenophobia; I was using that as an extreme example. Does she realise that, in effect, the Government are taking power to change our criminal law in virtually any respect? Why is it necessary to change our criminal law in any respect in order to further the fight against terrorism? That is the simple question.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page