| Crime (International Co-operation)
|
|
Caroline Flint: The discussion has been useful. As the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire pointed out, these are probing amendments, and I hope that my explanations on the points that have been raised will clarify matters and reassure him. We have taken full account of the requirements of article 4 of the framework decision on combating terrorism, which these clauses implement. The hon. Gentleman referred to paragraph 119 of the explanatory notes, which states:
Article 4 of the framework decision on combating terrorism requires member states to ensure that inciting, aiding, abetting or attempting to commit an offence referred to in articles 1, 2 or 3 of the framework decision is made punishable. Article 9 requires member states to take extra-territorial jurisdiction over the offences listed in article 4 in certain circumstances. I hope that the next point addresses some of the hon. Gentleman's particular concerns. Under UK law, jurisdiction for
is dependent on whether we have taken jurisdiction for the substantive offence in the UK. As we are taking extra-territorial jurisdiction over the substantive offences listed in articles 1, 2 and 3 of the framework decision in certain circumstances, we do not need to legislate specifically in order to take extra-territorial jurisdiction over aiding, abetting, attempting, inciting, conspiring, counselling or procuring to commit the offences listed in new sections 63B and 63C of the Terrorism Act 2000, in the particular circumstances described in them. Rather,
My understanding is that no further legislative provision is necessary to achieve that. I can provide the hon. Gentleman with other examples of legislation when extra-territorial offences are created, but no provision is made for secondary and inchoate offences, such as the Taking of Hostages Act 1982, the Nuclear Material (Offences) Act 1983, the United Nations Personnel Act 1997, the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and the Chemical Weapons Act 1996.
4 pmMr. Heath: The hon. Lady's response has been helpful, but it begs the question of where such matters are set out in British law. The assumption is that they exist under British law. I just wonder where. There must be a statute that says that, when we take territorial jurisdiction for a substantive offence, we also take similar jurisdiction for the secondary Column Number: 215 offences. Obviously, the Minister has not been provided with a reference to that.Caroline Flint: I hope shortly to provide an answer to that question. Another earlier point was how we take extra-territorial jurisdiction for, say, a new offence. If we create a new offence and wish to take extra-territorial jurisdiction for it, there would have to be a consequential amendment in the legislation. We would have to come back to it. As for the relationship between UK and international law, a rule of common law has been developed over time. We can provide further details, if required. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman. Mr. Paice: I am grateful to the Minister for her reply and reassurances. I thank the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome for helping me to wheedle out some of the facts from her. Obviously, it is important that such matters are covered under the Bill. I accept at face value her assertion. Lady Hermon: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill has huge potential to deal with international financing of terrorism? Is it his understanding that the Minister's explanation covered that point? Mr. Paice: The Minister may wish to intervene to clarify the situation. I argue that financing is covered by aiding and abetting. I am not a lawyer, however, so others may argue that it is not. If the Minister does not have time to intervene, I am sure that she will write to us and confirm whether financing is covered by the Bill. Obviously, there would be a major hole in the Bill if it were not covered. I shall assume that it is. However long I prevaricate, it seems that the Minister will not respond. I shall happily give way to her. Caroline Flint: The example cited by the hon. Gentleman of aiding and abetting would apply to the financing of terrorism. I am happy to receive further details about the matter to make sure that the hon. Member for North Down is reassured. Mr. Paice: I am grateful to the Minister. On the strength of her answer, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Mr. Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 68, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 69, in
Mr. Paice: I wish to clarify the exceptions under clause 52 and whether ''members of'' a United Kingdom diplomatic mission covers all employees, including locally recruited people. That is the simple question behind the amendment. I am sure that all our embassies and diplomatic missions recruit locally, and once those people are part and parcel of the establishment, they deserve the protection provided by the new section. We know what being a Member of this place involves, but it is unclear whether being a ''member of'' a diplomatic mission includes employees. Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is making an extremely important point. Locally recruited staff who Column Number: 216 are not part of the mission but serve within it would have no diplomatic status and would therefore need the protection of the new section, especially as they are perhaps the most likely to be injured by any terrorist attack on premises owned by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.Mr. Paice: The hon. Gentleman is right. If, God forbid, there was a terrorist attack on one of our missions abroad, it would be wholly unjust if the protection given to members was different from that given to those who were not members but in the same room when the attack took place. I am trying to ensure only that the term ''member of'' includes locally recruited employees. It is a straightforward but important point. Caroline Flint: It is helpful that the hon. Gentleman raised the issue so that we can clarify on the record which people working in our missions overseas will be protected. New section 63C(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000 gives the United Kingdom extra-territorial jurisdiction over certain domestic offences when they are committed against UK nationals, residents or ''protected persons'' outside the UK as an act of terrorism or for the purposes of terrorism. Subsection (3) specifies those persons who are ''protected persons'', which includes, inter alia, a member of a UK diplomatic mission within the meaning of article 1(b) of the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations 1961, as given effect in the UK by section 2 and schedule 1 of the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964. It also includes a member of a UK consular post within the meaning of article 1(g) of the Vienna convention on consular relations 1963, as given effect in the UK by section 1 and schedule 1 to the Consular Relations Act 1968. I want to make it clear that the definitions of ''member'' of a diplomatic mission and consular post outlined in those Acts include the employees of the mission and consular post, as the definition includes diplomatic, technical, administrative and service staff of the mission. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentlemen that employees are already covered within the meaning of ''members''. Mr. Paice: To double check, does that include locally recruited nationals of the foreign country? Caroline Flint: Yes, I am pleased to confirm that that does include locally recruited people. They contribute greatly to our services overseas, and we would expect them to be protected in the legislation. Mr. Paice: I am grateful to the Minister for her clarification. She has put on record what I wanted to hear. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Mr. Heath: I want to ask just a couple of questions on the operation of the clause. In the clause, the provisions for United Kingdom nationals are extended to nationals of the overseas territories and British overseas citizens. When would a person who has committed what would have been an Column Number: 217 offence in the UK face prosecution as a British overseas national or overseas territory citizen in the courts of the UK rather than in the courts of that territory? That may be an unanswerable question, and the provision may exist simply to allow for all circumstances to be taken into account. However, is similar legislation envisaged in the British overseas territories to allow them extra-territorial jurisdiction over their own citizens so that a national of the Turks and Caicos Islands—therefore a British overseas territory citizen—could be tried in the Turks and Caicos Islands, Gibraltar or wherever?If an offence is committed overseas that would be an offence in any part of the United Kingdom, what would direct that a case would be heard and an indictment made and under what jurisdiction? Would it be at the direction of the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Lord Advocate or Scottish Ministers? In what circumstances would a case be tried in a Scottish court rather than an English or Welsh court for an offence that had not taken place in Scotland, England or Wales, and where the citizen involved was not resident in Scotland, England or Wales? At the bottom of page 32, there is a curious distinction for the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, for which the explanation in the explanatory notes is that this is the only body of its kind based in the UK. We should be upset about that, if that is the case. It seems odd that the agency should be singled out in the legislation. It may be only temporarily the only EU body in the UK. Other bodies may come later, or it may move. This part of the Bill deals with attacks abroad on UK nationals, residents and diplomatic staff, and is trying to identify those people who are protected persons. It is therefore odd that the definition of protected persons gives an agency that is situated in the UK, not abroad, as its only specific reference to international bodies. I would have expected a list or a schedule of more international bodies to be provided, and for the more important bodies to be in countries overseas where we would wish to assume jurisdiction, rather than for an agency to be in this country where we must assume that we already have jurisdiction. I am sure that there is a good reason for this, but it does not come to mind at the moment.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 17 June 2003 |
