---

Terrorism Bill

moved Amendment No. 64:"Page 17, line 41, at end insert—" ““(   )   In deciding whether to give consent under subsection (2), the Attorney General or the Advocate General for Northern Ireland shall have regard to— (a)   any reasonable grounds for believing that the government of the country has committed or encouraged in its territory genocide or crimes against humanity or grave breaches of human rights; (b)   the extent to which that government is accountable to its citizens through free and fair elections; and (c)   the nature of the acts of terrorism which the persons against whom proceedings are contemplated, or any terrorist organisation of which he is believed to be a member or with which he is believed to be associated, has aided, committed or encouraged.”” The noble Baroness said: I suggest that Members of this House look closely at Clause 17 in relation to the amendment to Clause 19, which I am moving. Clause 17 is an interesting part of the Bill because it extends the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom to cover offences committed outside this country, including offences that may be partially or wholly involved with another government—not our own. It then says that somebody can be prosecuted for an offence against another government if that would constitute an offence in this country. In other words, somebody who commits an offence abroad can be brought within the circumference of the English courts for the purposes of holding him responsible for that offence. Those of us who have read the measured and careful report of the Constitution Committee will have seen what I think is a thoughtful phrase, which is relevant to some of the Questions raised earlier. Paragraph 4 of the report states:"““While anti-terrorist legislation is not new, each incremental instalment, generated by concern about public safety””—" nobody questions the concern of Members of this House about public safety—"““must be considered not only on its merits but in relation to the totality of such legislation””." That is why we on these Benches are concerned about Clauses 17, 18 and 19, and why we have proposed the amendment. Clause 19(2) refers to an ““offence under this Part”” which,"““has been committed for a purpose wholly or partly connected with the affairs of a country other than the United Kingdom””." In other words the clause catches people who may not be bringing any kind of terrorist action against the United Kingdom. If Members of the House care to look at Clause 17, they will see how very wide the range of such offences is, covering attempts to commit an offence and incitement to commit an offence—the list is very broadly expressed. The purpose of the amendment, which has been carefully and cautiously phrased, is to indicate that when an offence is committed outside this country and partially or largely involves the government of another country, the Attorney-General, who is obliged to give permission for a prosecution in such a case, ““shall have regard to””—not a very strong phrase—certain factors about that other government. In particular, the Attorney-General of the government of this country should have regard to whether that other government has been engaged in crimes against humanity. The offence of crimes against humanity is a relatively recent development. The more thoughtful, civilised and democratic members of the United Nations are trying to establish that some international crimes are so terrible and unspeakable that the global community should stand against them and condemn those responsible for them. I do not need to go much beyond the well known cases of Messrs Mladic, Karadzic and Milosevic in respect of the Federation of Yugoslavia, as it formerly was, and the dreadful case of Rwanda—to some extent, such cases were copied in Cambodia. Tragically, crimes against humanity are still very much part of our world and, so far, are not showing signs of being completely purged from it. This amendment, which is so cautiously expressed, leaves it to the Attorney-General to decide in the instance of an offence against another government whether he should have regard to—if you like, take into account—the behaviour of that government. The Government of the United Kingdom, which assert on many occasions their opposition to systematic torture and genocide and have signed the United Nations conventions on both, are clearly aligned with those who try to stop any approval of such crimes against humanity. Finally, we move from that to a rather more difficult example. Are those who use extra-parliamentary methods ever excusable? Our argument is that where they use extra-parliamentary methods because no parliamentary or constitutional channels are open to them and they have to take into account the behaviour of a government that do not listen to dissident, opposition or critical voices, that must be taken into account by the Attorney-General. I shall not bore the House by reciting yet again the long and brilliant tradition of this country in protecting dissidents from Garibaldi to members of the African National Congress because it believed that they were voices for freedom, civilisation and democracy against tyranny. However, that is a great tradition of this country and one of the proudest parts of our heritage. Although I recognise that this amendment is rather unusual and that, generally speaking, this House would be reluctant to adopt an amendment that has international repercussions, the point is that the rule of law now has international repercussions and cannot be constrained within the borders of a particular nation state. The purpose of this amendment it to make sure that the Attorney-General, in bearing in mind and having regard to this issue, will uphold the fine traditions of the United Kingdom with regard to governments that treat their citizens as if they are so many slaves. I beg to move.