Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 25 January 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Terrorism Bill 2005-06.


Terrorism Bill

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for expressing her support for these amendments in such a clear and proportionate way. I need to say to her and to my noble friend Lord Judd, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford that the Government very much understand the basis and the main thrust of their argument, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. Although the amendments have been redrawn by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, with his usual ingenuity, there regrettably remain similar flaws to those which existed in the amendment we discussed in Committee, very much for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in terms of the breadth of the amendment. Noble Lords are right to emphasise that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General and his successors in title, if this was to remain, has a very broad discretion. It is also right that at the moment we are all of a view that the definition of terrorism would benefit from further scrutiny. It is for that reason that we have entrusted the development of those issues into the hands of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. We are all anxious to see the suggestions that he may make and look forward to an opportunity to debate them with appropriate vigour. I should like to say one or two things about why the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, does not quite meet the point. As your Lordships know, there is a wide spectrum of belief about who would or would not fall within such a categorisation. I recall very clearly that, the last time we were talking about this, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, tried to make it clear that America would not be included. But we have had debates about Guantanamo Bay and comments by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, about the approach taken by various states in the US. There are those on the Liberal Benches who spoke out very powerfully about the propriety of the last US election and whether that was a model which should be covered. So we know that this route is riddled with difficulties and problems. Noble Lords should know that in deciding where the public interest lies, the Attorney and the Advocate Generals will doubtless need to consider the nature of the alleged crimes as well as the circumstances of those crimes. They may need to look at the nature of the country in which any terrorist act took place. So we can be confident that they will discharge their duty with honour.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
677 c1192-3 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Civil liberties Codes of practice Detainees Companies Assets Human rights Genocide National security Police Powers Nuclear weapons Police custody Terrorism Training
Legislation
Terrorism Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk