Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, speaks with great passion on an issue he feels strongly about and I always listen with great care to what he says in your Lordships’ House and beyond. We simply disagree on the outcome and purpose of this part of the legislation. The primary purpose of Clause 52 is to make it crystal clear in statute that terrorists are excluded from asylum by virtue of Article 1F(c) of the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees. There is no disagreement between us on how that was developed to make clear that terrorists were excluded. The question the noble Lord raises is about how we have tried to do that. We are not seeking to make 146 other states think again. We are simply saying that in the context of this legislation we think it right and proper to put this provision in the Bill. Of course I take seriously what the UNHCR London office has said to us. There has been a further exchange of letters at official level. There were meetings with officials of the UNHCR before Christmas. The noble Lord will know that contact and dialogue continues with the UNHCR, but we disagree with certain elements it raises. We do so having looked carefully at the UN Security Council resolutions and the interpretation placed on aspects of the convention. The amendment would remove subsection (1) from the clause which clarifies that acts of committing, preparing or instigating terrorism and acts of encouraging when inducing others to do so constitute,"““acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations””" within the meaning of Article 1F(c). The second amendment removes the definition of ““terrorism”” from the clause. I will try to address each in turn. As I have indicated, Article 1F(c) has long been interpreted by the courts and by the UN Security Council resolutions as allowing for the exclusion of terrorists from asylum. It is not explicit within the wording. We think that in the light of the heightened threat from terrorism that this country now faces, it is appropriate to legislate to provide statutory backing to the accepted practice that terrorist should not be afforded the protection of the refugee convention. I do not accept that it is inappropriate for Parliament to legislate to interpret specific provisions into domestic law. As noble Lords are aware, it has already been done on a number of occasions. In Section 34 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, we clarified that no balancing test should be applied when deciding whether to exclude an individual from the refugee convention on the basis of Article 1F or to remove the protection of the convention from them by virtue of Article 33 of Section 2. I turn to Amendment No. 47 on the definition of ““terrorism””. I think that I made the Government’s position as clear as I could in Committee. Parliament legislated to define ““terrorism”” in the 2000 Act and we believe it is appropriate to reflect the definition of the national Parliament within this clause. It must be drawn sufficiently widely to cover all the conduct we would wish to capture. The definition of ““terrorism”” in our domestic law is compatible with those accepted in other fora; for example, the definition in the European Union framework decision on combating terrorism. We have been clear, however, that we will continue to look at our approach to defining Article 1F(c) in the refugee convention in the light of developments in the Terrorism Bill. Noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in particular—will be fully aware that we have asked the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, to conduct an independent review of our definition of terrorism and report back within a year of commencement of the new Terrorism Act. If Parliament decides in the light of that review that changes to the existing definition are needed, we would commit to bringing forward this change if parliamentary time allowed and would reflect the new definition in Clause 52 of this Bill as necessary. As I said in Committee, the Government think it appropriate to take the matter forward in the way I have stated for the reasons I have given. We believe that it is compatible with what we wish to do. We make the commitments I have given already as regards the review of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I hope that the noble Lord feels reassured and able to withdraw the amendment.