| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall not answer hypothetical questions. I refer noble Lords to the Answer I gave to the same Question on 15th November at cols. 678 and 679. I shall not have a razor blade put between myself and the Secretary of State for Defence, or anybody else. If I am really pressed I shall read into the record the same Answers as I gave on that day when I was specifically asked about the position of
bin Laden if he ended up in this country as an illegal immigrant. The position has not changed since 15th November.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, can the Minister explain to our American friends, of whom I am one, and perhaps to Mr Ashcroft, their Attorney-General, if this is raised, that the criteria applied are those that were laid down by the European Court of Human Rights in 1989? The government of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, honourably gave effect to those criteria. Now, as a matter of European public policy, the framework decision on Eurowarrants makes sure that within Europe, at any rate, the policy of the European Convention on Human Rights will prevent anybody being extradited to face the death penalty, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or torture. That policy is observed by the 41 member states of the Council of Europe.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I agree with everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I refer noble Lords to the original Answer I gave; that is, that our policy is in accordance with the Extradition Act 1989. I shall leave it there. I am sure that in a moment the penny will drop.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, does the Minister find, as I do, that it is at least inconsistent if not illogical that we can send our troops out to a situation where they might have to kill suspect terrorists or be killed by them, yet we are not prepared to put suspect terrorists in danger after due process of law? I find that inconsistent.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, there is nothing inconsistent as regards what happens under fire in enemy action under the rules of war as opposed to judicial execution. If the noble Lord cannot understand the difference between the two, we have a problem in debating the issue. There is a difficulty. I repeat that our extradition treaty with the United States does not cause any problems with the United States. We extradite people back to the United States even for offences which carry the death penalty there. That is done on the basis that if such persons are found guilty and the death penalty is imposed, it will not be carried out. That is a perfectly satisfactory arrangement that has worked well for years under both governments.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that perhaps the Prime Minister's statement earlier this week caused a little confusion in some minds? Does he also agree that the safest thing that Osama bin Laden can now do is to smuggle himself into this country?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, if, having put thousands of people to death he wants to save his own skin, that is absolutely right. That would show the kind of coward he is. My noble friend Lord Stoddart asked that question on 15th November during an exchange at
col. 679. The position I gave then has not changed to date. That is clear. Perhaps I may add that no one, inside or outside Westminster, inside or outside the Government or the media, has questioned any of the Answers I gave on that day.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, does not the Minister realise that if a person were apprehended or convicted as a terrorist, some people would think that the best thing would be for him to be extradited to a country which carries out the death penalty as soon as possible?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, we have been concentrating on the United States. Most of our partners do not have the death penalty; the United States does. It is still in force in 38 states. That implies that there are many states where it is not in force. When explained calmly to members of the public, I believe that they understand the difference between what happens during enemy action and acts of war and our general policy of not having execution. That has been settled on free votes in this Parliament year after year, and there has been no change.
Business of the House: Standing Order 46
3.28 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, before I move my Motion, I welcome back to your Lordships' House our friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I am told—I do not know how reliably—that she has been determined to come back today just to support the Government!
I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, in the event of the Consolidated Fund Bill being brought from the Commons, Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to allow the Bill to be taken through all its stages on Monday next.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Christmas Day (Trading) Bill [HL]
Read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Consolidated Fund Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a money Bill, and read a first time.
Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, before we commence consideration of the Commons amendments on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, it may be for the convenience of the House if I explain that a
supplementary Marshalled List of amendments has recently been placed in the Printed Paper Office and in other places around the House.The supplementary list contains only two amendments. The first relates to Amendment No. 48. It has been tabled in the name of all three Front Benches, so I hope that the House will find it acceptable. The second relates to the last group of amendments on our list. It relates to an amendment proposed by the Government in respect of review of the Act by a committee of Privy Counsellors.
Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
3.30 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons and amendments be considered forthwith.
Moved, That the Commons reasons and amendments be considered forthwith.—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
5Clause 17, page 7, line 7, after Xauthority" insert Xto a relevant public authority"
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
5ABecause it is not appropriate to limit the power conferred by this clause in the manner proposed by the amendment.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 5A, but do propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5 I shall speak also to the other amendments in the group. We believe that the way in which the Bill was left after your Lordships had dealt with Part 3 would have been counter-productive. We all want to prevent terrorism and to catch the
With our original drafting they could disclose for any crime. Therefore, vital information would reach the police. However, we are not giving a blanket disclosure power just for information relating to crime. Our new amendment will, we hope, clarify the position on the face of the Bill to your Lordships' satisfaction. The public authorities will have to take into account, before disclosing, the proportionality of their disclosures. Bulk disclosure of information without regard to the seriousness of the offence in question would not be proportionate and would therefore not be permitted by these provisions.
In the example offered in the other place by the Shadow Home Secretary a public authority would not be able to disclose vast swathes of tax information to the Baltimore Police Department if it had stopped someone in respect of a driving offence. In the unlikely event that a UK public authority had information that related to specific driving offences, it could disclose only that information which directly related to the offence. If there was a suspicion that the individual was involved in more serious crime, it could disclose information to the investigatory authorities.
Under your Lordships' amendment it could only do so if it believed that the crimes were terrorist or national security related. It may be that drugs are found in the car. Under our drafting a public authority could pass relevant information to the individual. That could help to show a connection with the funding of terrorism.
I shall give a couple of examples which I do not think have been given before. I hope that they will clarify the position. It has been said previously that the complex task of operating a terrorist cell may involve the smuggling of drugs into the UK which are not obviously linked to terrorism. Customs do not know that they are for a terrorist cell and information does not therefore reach the police. The police would ask only if they already have some evidence. So far as concerns the Customs, they have what has been smuggled but they do not have any connection.
The Inland Revenue has previously been unable to disclose to the police that a drug dealer was citing drug dealing on his tax returns. I read that slowly because I gulped this morning when I read it. If a drug dealer is arguing for taxation purposes and he puts Xdrug dealing" on his tax return the Inland Revenue is unable to disclose that to the police. We know that drugs are used to finance terrorism because that crook bin Laden was selling drugs to finance his terrorist activities, bringing not just death but misery to millions of people. That could prove to be a vital piece of intelligence but it cannot be passed over under your Lordships' amendment because the Inland Revenue has no idea that the drugs are linked to terrorism.
Terrorist groups rely on work in the construction industry—that is to say, mobile industry without any factories—to provide income and a cover while in the UK. While monitoring that industry for national insurance contributions evasion—in which the industry has a good record, but a bad record so far as concerns the Inland Revenue—it may obtain information which points to the operations of a terrorist cell but it has no idea that they are terrorists so the information never reaches the police. We think that that goes too far.
Frankly, I do not think that that was in the minds of noble Lords when the original amendments were passed to the Bill as presented. I hope therefore that, bearing in mind the debates in this House and indeed the other place and the fact that we want to put on the face of the Bill a test of proportionality, the new operation of Part 3, in terms of disclosure, will meet with your Lordships' favour.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 5A but do proposed Amendment No. 5B in lieu thereof.—(Lord Rooker.)
5BPage 7, line 23, at end insert—X
X( ) No disclosure of information shall be made by virtue of this section unless public authority by which the disclosure is made is satisfied that the making of the disclosure is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by it."
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page