|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way for a moment. What is needed is not a new definition of terrorism. We have a perfectly adequate definition in Section 1 of the Act. What is needed is a list of terrorist offences, which we do not presently have. They are dotted around here and there in the existing Terrorism Act. It would be of the greatest convenience to have them all brought togetherincluding murder, manslaughter and all the rest, where the necessary terrorist element is involved.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his intervention, given who has made it. I shall reflect on his point against a test of utilityas to whether it would add anything that would be beneficial to the Government in relation to these issues. No doubt I shall respond to the noble Lord on that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is right. Many of these issues are about a balance between civil liberties and law enforcement. However, I invite the House to reflect that civil liberties do not align themselves merely around the defence of the innocent who might be charged with an offence. They are relevant to the defence of "quiet enjoyment" by a personin other words, being able to live without harassment, fear or apprehension of crime in one's community, in one's society. That seems to me to be just as important as civil liberty. That is why legislators make measures of this typeto try to ensure that a person can have that form of civil liberty too; namely, his or her own quiet enjoyment. We shall no doubt return to these points on many other occasions.
Turning to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about foreign officers informing, we anticipate that the vast majority of joint surveillance operations across international boundaries will be arranged in advance. The Bill provides for exceptional circumstances where this may not be possible. However, as I indicated, to take advantage of this facility, the convention requires that foreign officers must contact the UK police as soon as the border is crossed.
On the title of the Bill, I am pleased to say that, until the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, guided me otherwise, I did not know what the answer was for changing the titleand I am not sure that I would have told him even if I had known; but we now hear that this is possible. In short, the title is devised by parliamentary counsel, considering the overall scope of the Bill; and the Long
On the question about "fishing trips" in terms of data protection, the Bill will not allow fishing trips of the kind mentioned by the noble Lord. You can access the SIS only when you find, stop and arrest a person whom you think might be of interest and therefore want to check on a specific individual in specific circumstances.
The order-making power in Clause 52 is needed to cover new states joining the European Union should this occur, as we expect it to, and also countries such as Norway and Iceland which are part of Schengen but are not in the European Union.
The speech by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, was extremely interesting. It probably touches on my earlier point about a discussion at some stage on the future of Europe and how some of these issues are dealt with. The noble Lord is right that it should not be a mandate for doing nothing by having everything signed and sealed by a legislature before one can move. On the other hand, it is important that there is effective scrutiny at crucial points.
I will not go into more detail now, because time is tight, but I mark those points and the question of whether the process of transposition fails to implement faithfully the framework agreement. We have placed in the Library a note that effectively compares the framework agreement and the clauses of the Bill. I will double-check with officials whether that goes to the completeness of what was raised today in discussion. I am unapologetic that the Bill will include things that were not in the framework agreement. If we have a useful Bill before the House, we should use it as a vehicle for carrying out things that we need to do. There is no difficulty in our making clear to the House and to the Opposition Front Benches where that applies.
I will have a later opportunity to engage with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, about his views on Europe, and it will be a pleasure to do so. He commented that we were in danger of changing our position. I am reminded of what John Maynard Keynes said:
The noble Lord made the central point that we do not participate fully in Schengen. As noble Lords will have gathered from our debate, we are clear that it is important for us to maintain border controls. We will exercise the freedom that the Treaty of Amsterdam gave us to participate fully in other parts of Schengen when it seems to us to suit the interests of United Kingdom citizens. We will use that test for almost all European legislation, asking whether it benefits British citizens rather than being some unclear process of Euro-harmonisation. The measures must deliver benefits to British citizens. We will apply that test in negotiations and legislation.
Bank account requests can be made only in response to specific lists of criminal offences. Requests will not be disclosed as for domestic cases, and overseas requests will be subject to judicial discretion. Search warrants will be subject to PACE 1984, and the crime has to be an arrestable offence in the United Kingdom.
The five-hour limitation is not a thin end of the wedge. I made clear that it is highly circumscribed and we do not expect that it will be frequently used. I invite the House to think about the alternative. If we did not allow it, as perhaps only one Member implied should happen, that would imply clearly that we prefer criminals or suspected criminals to enter this country, rather than police who are pursuing them to try to apprehend them. That is an Alice-in-Wonderland world, which is why there is a five-hour limitation to try to ensure that pursuit mechanisms are tied up domestically and to increase the likelihood of apprehending suspected criminals or terrorists.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. When I used the term "thin end of the wedge", I was referring to the propositions by French and Germans to establish a European federal bureau of investigation. I asked what the Government's view of that position was.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, asked about innocent protesters. All the offences listed under Section 53B(2) must satisfy the definition of terrorism under Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000. In response to the concern about extra-territorial jurisdictions for countries where an act is not a criminal offences, it is aimed solely at terrorism. We already have ETJ for terrorist bombing and terrorist finances to satisfy commitments under UN Conventions. These clauses take ETJ where offences are committed abroad by or against UK nationals for a terrorist purpose. The Government feel that is right in principle.
The sequence of markers by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about where we will be returning in Committee was helpful. We know what we must come back to. As I signalled, we will seek to satisfy as far as is reasonably practicable some of the points about origin and application. It is not a draft Bill, for reasons noble Lords would understand. The draft agreements have
In conclusion, I do not pretend that I have answered every question. It has been a thought-provoking debate. It raised issues for me to reflect on in terms of principle, high policy and what we will need to do to satisfy the House on the detail of this important legislation. Having said that, I am warmly grateful for the very good reception the Bill has had in principle from all parts of the House. I thank noble Lords for that.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I have listened very carefully to his summing up. He has not answered two important points. He talks about the scrutiny process through which this Bill and other European legislation have gone. Is he in effect saying that the United Kingdom Parliament is not free to alter substantially the framework decision? To what extent is the United Kingdom free to vote on it, to change it or, if it wants, to get rid of it?
Secondly, the Minister acquiesced in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who envisages Europol eventually carrying out some of the powers under this Bill. Why has Europol been given immunity for its actions in Statutory Instrument No. 2973 as long ago as 17th December 1997? That cannot possibly have anything to do with the events of 11th September. To sum up, to what extent is the United Kingdom free to change the Bill, and does Europol have immunity?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am clear that it is convention that someone who speaks during a debate, but who is not in his place when the Minister responds, does not have a right of response. I am less clear on the position of a Member who is not present during the debate and arrives when the Minister is summing up.
I addressed the first point and signalled quite clearly that I shall clarify it later. However, I spoke about the scope of the limitation in some detail in my summing up. No doubt, I will go the further mile on that. I shall not respond to the second question on the basis of principle and practice. Given my usual style, I will no doubt write to the noble Lord.
|Next Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|