Terrorism Bill

We have had an interesting debate. I began by saying that I was moving a probing amendment. Goodness, we probed. The amendment has had the effect of probing a hornets’ nest. We are now clear that what the Minister is proposing goes well beyond what is necessary to meet international obligations. It goes well beyond what some of us would see as a sensible extension of extraterritorial jurisdiction—I almost said extraterrestrial again, to please the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)—in dealing effectively with those who commit or are to a serious extent planning terrorist offences abroad. Points have been made about the difficulty of those who seek asylum in our country. It is right that if someone is a terrorist they should not be given asylum in the United Kingdom. The problem with the Bill is that it goes well beyond the convention definitions of terrorism and introduces offences in this country that would be unknown to any other jurisdiction. It extends the scope well beyond that which is reasonable to exclude people from asylum in this country on that basis. That worries me. People have to give a truthful answer when they are asked what their experiences are in their country of origin when they apply for asylum. They are required to give evidence that will then be used to prosecute them because they have encouraged someone or a group within their country, whose members they believe to be freedom fighters in the context of their country’s circumstances but in British law will be termed a terrorist organisation. That poses real problems. As I have said, the difficulty is still one of definition. It is a debate that we are still to have, unfortunately. When I listened to the Minister’s response, including his truthful but extraordinary response to the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), I was convinced that we could not leave the issue to Report. We need to express to Ministers that they need to tighten these definitions considerably if we are to agree to them at a later stage in our consideration of the Bill. On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I still maintain the position that there is a possibility of finding an extraterritorial jurisdiction that is based on clear definitions that meets our commitments by treaty that we would be happy to support. What we have heard from the Minister this evening suggests that we are a long way from that. On that basis, I think that we need to test the opinion of the Committee.