| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: When we debated this in a preliminary way in Committee on 7th February I raised the matter at times when the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, was dealing with the amendments. I apologise to noble Lords for not putting the issue to the Minister as clearly as I might have done. I warmly congratulate my noble friend Lady Miller on having composed an amendment that implies exactly the point that I was seeking to raise at that stage. However, because I raised the matter earlier and was not absolutely confident that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, and myself were mutually understanding each other, I greatly look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): Amendment No. 61 seeks to ensure that limited liability partnerships are included in the definition of a "United Kingdom person" and hence can be controlled under the Bill. I can assure the Committee that, as the noble Baroness generously conceded, limited liability partnerships are bodies incorporated under the law of the United Kingdom—indeed, those are the words that are found, more or less, in the text of Clause 10(1)—and are, therefore, already included in the definition of a "United Kingdom person" in the Bill. In the circumstances, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment on the basis that to include those words would add absolutely nothing to the meaning of the legislation.
I agree with the noble Baroness that Amendment No. 63 deals with the more substantial point. It seeks to extend the definition of a "United Kingdom national" in Clause 10(2) to include persons who are,
- "ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom".
As Members of the Committee know, our policy is to assert extra-territorial jurisdiction extremely sparingly. Where it does exist, it is generally applied only in respect of UK nationals. Corruption and assisting illegal immigration are examples. Any further extension of jurisdiction to anyone other than UK nationals has been limited to the very few areas where we are required to do so under international obligations or where there can be said to be an overwhelming international consensus—for example, in relation to war crimes, sex tourism, hijacking or acts of piracy.
We believe that it is right to take the power to prohibit or regulate the activities of British nationals abroad under Clauses 2, 3 and 4. The dummy draft orders that were published last October describe the activities to which we propose to apply extra-territorial controls—for example, the trafficking and brokering of arms to embargoed destinations or the provision of technical assistance intended for use in a weapons of mass destruction or related missile programme. We believe that activities of that kind are sufficiently serious to warrant the UK taking the power to sanction any British national who engages in such activities overseas. However, it cannot be said that all or even most other countries share our belief in the need for controls on all the activities targeted by Clauses 2, 3 and 4. By extending the extra-territorial
powers in the Bill to include any persons ordinarily resident in the UK, it would be possible for a foreign national who normally resides in the UK to face prosecution in this country for an activity that was carried out in his own country but which remains entirely legal there. Taking such a power would be likely to attract the same kind of criticism that the UK has quite rightly directed at other countries that have sought to impose extra-territorial controls on our nationals for activities that are not subject to prohibition or control in this country.Finally, I point out that while the Government do not believe that it would be appropriate to apply controls that are made under the Bill to activities that are carried out entirely overseas by foreign nationals who are residents of the UK, such persons will be subject to control if any relevant part of the activity takes place in the United Kingdom.
I do not know whether inadvertently I have covered the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, on an earlier occasion. I have with me the Official Report of 7th February, and I have read that debate. However, I do not recall precisely the point that he made then but I do not want to conclude without having tried my best to answer his point.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I am most grateful to the Minister. On 7th February, I raised the case of the "sheikh"—the noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to the association of such sheikhs with the Al'Qaeda network—who did not fall under the Bill's classifications and definitions. He would fall under them if we agree to my noble friend's amendment. My question was: if that person were engaged in controlling activities abroad in a manner of which the Government disapproved, would he be covered by anti-terrorist legislation—I am aware that there is anti-terrorist legislation in this area—or would he escape? The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, replied on that occasion that, as he understood my question, the situation would be covered. I raise the matter again—I have the example of my noble friend and her amendment—so that we can be certain beyond doubt and peradventure that all is well.
Lord Bach: The Terrorism Act 2000, as the noble Lord forecast, makes it an offence for UK citizens to provide, or invite another to provide, property that may be used for the purposes of terrorism. That applies to activities in this country and to activities that are carried out by UK persons abroad. There are already UN sanctions in place to prevent brokering to Al'Qaeda members and their associates, as designated by the Security Council. The Al' Qaeda and Taliban (United Nations Measures) Order 2002 makes it an offence for anyone in the UK or any UK persons abroad to supply or arrange to supply arms to those who are designated, wherever they are located. I believe that that final sentence answers the noble Lord's point.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: What the Minister has just read out confirms that the case that
I raised is covered by prior legislation. I am not in the least surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, was not able to point to the legislation at which I hinted in our exchange on 7th February.
Lord Bach: The only reason that I can do so is because I have been briefed on it. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: We are clearly satisfied with the answers that we have been given. I thank my noble friend Lord Brooke for raising that matter again and the Minister for reading out such a good brief. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 62:
- Page 6, line 38, leave out "British Dependent Territories Citizen" and insert "British overseas territories citizen"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Razzall moved Amendment No. 64:
- Page 6, line 43, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 69, 70 and 70A. All of those amendments have the same purpose. We move from the esoteric subjects that we have been debating so far to the less esoteric topic of the Isle of Man.
The purpose of the amendment and those grouped with it is to ensure that the Bill's provisions, so far as they apply by order to the Isle of Man, are mandatory on the government rather than discretionary. I shall not waste the time of Members of the Committee by explaining how that arrangement works—it is apparent from the way in which the amendments are set out.
The background to this matter involves the significant concern that the Isle of Man has in the past provided a loophole for the export of arms. In particular, there is significant evidence that in 1994 the Isle of Man was used to provide a loophole for the export of arms to Rwanda. Those arms were used in the genocide in that country at that time. A UK government inquiry in 1997 found that the UN arms embargo on Rwanda was not implemented in the Crown dependency, and there was also a delay in its implementation in the dependent territories.
There is significant concern among those who have examined the matter that the Isle of Man could be used to provide a loophole unless it is closed. The amendment would ensure that the restrictions were mandatory by Order in Council in relation to the Isle of Man rather than discretionary. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Amendment No. 69 appears in my name. I support all of the amendments that were spoken to by the noble Lord. I had prepared a beautiful speech on Amendment No. 69 but, given
the time and the fact that the noble Lord moved the amendment so well, there is no point in saying more on this matter.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |