Extract from House of Commons Hansard, Debates for 19th November 2001

Debate on Anti-Terrorism Bill

Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow):

I shall try to be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I want to cover two main issues. Let me make it clear straight away that I have serious doubts about some of the Bill's provisions, which I do not support.

Although security needs to be reviewed in the light of what happened on 11 September, I do not believe that the contents of the Bill are being properly scrutinised. Nor do I believe, despite the fact that it is intended to be in force for only 15 months in the first place, that it will not be in force long term. The history of all previous legislation introduced in this way suggests that the Bill will last and be in force for a long time to come.

Part 4-clauses 21 to 23 in particular-provides the powers to act on suspicion. Many Members have discussed the problems of certification and of the definition of suspected terrorism leading to indefinite detention, the nature of the evidence and how it can be challenged. I do not want to repeat their remarks, but I shall make one brief point.

Throughout the debate on those clauses so far, the assumption seems to have been made that the intelligence with which we shall be dealing will come from British intelligence services. Inevitably, some foreign Governments will want their political opponents who live in this country to be regarded as international terrorists, and will no doubt try to supply evidence and intelligence to that effect. Questions will arise about how that intelligence will be assessed and what the political pressures will be, depending on which country the evidence comes from.

I am sure that if we were not introducing the Bill, but were considering the introduction in other countries of indefinite internment without trial, many Members would say that they fundamentally disapproved of what was happening.

Clauses 33 and 34, which have not been discussed much in this debate, deal with the UN convention on refugees, and certification that the convention does not apply. Why are those clauses needed? Terrorists are not covered by the convention, as article 1(f) of it makes clear. People who have committed crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity are not covered by the convention.

The office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has made it clear that it does not believe that the change is necessary. The question that should be asked about this part of the Bill is: how is it possible to make a proper judgment about whether someone should be excluded from the provisions of the refugee convention without considering their whole story? It is only by full consideration that it is possible to decide whether they should be excluded. The drafting of the clauses means that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission will not be able to do that. It will not be able to question the merits of the decision that the Secretary of State has made. That is specifically excluded.

Clause 34, the title of which is "Construction", appears to be an interpretation of parts of the 1951 convention and, indeed, a reservation concerning some of those parts. How does that relate to article 42 of the convention, to which we are signatories, which makes it clear that reservations concerning articles were possible only at the time of signature and accession to the convention. Indeed, it is impossible to make reservations concerning some articles, including Article 1.

I have significant doubts about the provisions on religious hatred, which I do not have time to detail this evening. The Bill raises serious questions, and I hope that significant changes will be made in Committee, especially to parts 4 and 5. Without such changes, I shall not find it possible to support the Bill's Third Reading.

Home Page     |     Parliament Page