Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


Baroness Carnegy of Lour: When the Minister was describing the Iranian siege terrorist attack—which I found very useful because I recently saw it repeated on television and could picture it—he said that rape or the threat of rape could have been an offence. Is the threat of rape included here or was that a slip of the tongue?

Lord Filkin: Yes, it is, under Article 1.1(a), threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I am very grateful in particular to the Minister for answering so fully. I may have misheard him on one point when he said that there are no specific terrorist offences in the Act. Among other places, they are all set out in Part 6 of the 2000 Act. That is my fourth and final point. All the offences should be listed together in one place, not scattered, as now, through three different Acts, which I find very confusing. I am grateful to the Minister.

He did not deal with the point on the Suppression of Terrorism Act, but as I had not given notice on that issue, perhaps that is easily understood. However, I hope that he will think again about the broader points that I have tried to mention—not necessarily the

28 Jan 2003 : Column GC173

specific point on rape. I fully understand those arguments. In particular, I hope that he will think about the extraordinarily clumsy way of drafting the jurisdiction provision. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Filkin: Before we close, it is always a mistake for Ministers to attempt to do things themselves. While I am absolutely clear that threatening to commit any of the acts under Article 1 is covered in the treaty, I am advised that the threat of rape is not an offence under domestic law. Therefore, we do not take extra-territorial jurisdiction for it. Attempts, conspiracy, and so forth are in domestic law, so we take extra-territorial jurisdiction over them. I am surprised that the threat of rape is not an offence, but I am so advised.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 135:


    Page 31, line 27, at end insert—


"(i) aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring or inciting the commission of, or attempting or conspiring to commit, any of the offences in paragraphs (a) to (h)"

The noble Baroness said: Having heard that exchange, I am now more confused about my own amendment than I was before. In a sense, I am returning to the underlying theme of the noble and learned Lord's argument—whether we have a belt and braces position here. Are we doing more than is compliant? In addition, are we doing enough? The issue of the threat of committing an offence is relevant.

As the noble and learned Lord said, Clause 53 inserts a number of new sections into the Terrorism Act 2000 to provide for extra-territorial jurisdiction in respect of offences linked to terrorism that are committed abroad by UK nationals and residents. To cut to the chase on this, when I first looked at the list of offences in the Bill, I noticed that—unlike when, as a magistrate, one just sees them listed—there was no reference to the related offences, such as,


    "aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring or inciting the commission of, or attempting or conspiring to commit",

any of those offences. I was not thinking only of threatening. Threatening can be one of those, but it is possible to aid and abet without personally threatening—a person may not be present when an offence takes place or is attempted. Therefore, as I read the Bill, there will be no assumption of extra-territorial jurisdiction in cases of terrorist conspiracies or attempts to commit the terrorist offences listed in these sections.

I tabled Amendment No. 135 to find out if that is what the Government intend. It would mean that terrorists could not be prosecuted under the new extra-territorial jurisdiction provisions for conspiracies or attempts, but only for the commission of the actual terrorist atrocities. Perhaps I have missed the provision in the Bill or there is something in the convention that gives this interpretation to it.

28 Jan 2003 : Column GC174

Certainly, I am not clear and I should be extremely grateful if the Minister would explain whether aiding and abetting are covered and, if so, how.

I also wondered why other terrorist offences, such as causing an explosion likely to endanger life or property and attempting or conspiring to cause an explosion, are not listed. I believe that I am asking a supplementary to the question asked by the noble and learned Lord about terrorist murder. I beg to move.

Lord Filkin: We interpreted this as a probing amendment to determine whether we had taken extra-territorial jurisdiction in the secondary offences highlighted in the amendments to fulfil the requirements of Article 4. In that respect, they are right and proper probing amendments. I assure the Committee that we have and I shall explain the detail of how this has been done.

Article 4 of the framework decision requires member states to ensure that inciting, aiding, abetting or attempting to commit an offence is made punishable. Under UK law jurisdiction for secondary and inchoate offences, such as aiding, abetting, attempting, inciting, conspiring, counselling and procuring, 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 Article 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 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 Sections 63B and 63C in the particular circumstances described in those sections.

Rather, where an extra-territorial offence is created, extra-territorial jurisdiction is also automatically taken over secondary and inchoate offences. No further legislation is necessary in order to achieve that. I hope that answers the very necessary probing amendment raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay.

4 p.m.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for his clarification that secondary and inchoate offences are covered.

Lord Filkin: I regret the fact that I am moving up and down like a Jack-in-the-box, but a further question was raised which it would be better to answer now rather than troubling the noble Baroness with a letter. We already take extra-territorial jurisdiction over explosives offences under Section 62 of the Terrorism Act 2000. This also covers chemical and biological offences; nuclear offences are covered by the Nuclear Material (Offences) Act 1983.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

28 Jan 2003 : Column GC175

[Amendments Nos. 135A and 136 not moved.]

Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 137:


    Page 32, line 5, after "of" insert "or employed by"

The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 138. These amendments relate specifically to proposed new Section 63C of the Terrorism Act 2000, which is contained in Clause 53.

When I first read the provision, with recent events in mind, my thoughts turned to Zahoor Shah and Sayed Afzal, the two Afghans who worked at the English Embassy in Kabul and were awarded the MBE last year for guarding and maintaining the embassy through decades of war and civil strife. I am sure that Members of the Committee will agree that the honour was well deserved.

Thinking of the New Year's Honours List, I wondered whether the Bill's provisions would cover not only UK nationals working in British embassies abroad, but also foreign nationals working in any capacity in our embassies. There are so many such people who give long service.

A crucial term in new Section 63C is "protected person", the definition of which is contained in subsection (3)(c). Paragraph 118 of the Explanatory Notes states:


    "'Protected persons' includes all diplomatic and consular staff, whether of UK nationality or not".

Subsection (3) provides that,


    "a person is a protected person if . . . he is a member of a United Kingdom diplomatic mission . . . [or] . . . consular post".

My amendments would simply change that definition by inserting the words "or employed by".

I confess that there may be other protections that I have not looked into—for example, under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Therefore, are there any other ways in which such persons would be given protection as opposed to what appears to be a gap in the Bill? I beg to move.

Lord Filkin: New Section 63C(1) of the Terrorism Act gives the UK extra-territorial jurisdiction over certain domestic offences where they are committed against UK nationals or residents and "protected persons" outside the UK as an act of terrorism or for the purposes of terrorism.

Subsection (3) of this section specifies those persons who are "protected persons". This 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.

Therefore, the definition of a member of a diplomatic mission and consular post as contained in these provisions includes the employees of the mission and consular post, as the definition includes diplomatic, technical, administrative and service staff. So employees are already covered.

The Vienna convention defines members of a diplomatic and consular mission as including diplomatic staff, administrative and technical staff and

28 Jan 2003 : Column GC176

service staff. Service staff are persons in the domestic service of the mission. Accordingly, this definition includes all those employed by the mission whatever their nationality. Therefore, for those reasons I am happy to be able to reassure the noble Baroness that they are so protected.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page