Clause 52 - Jurisdiction for terrorist offfences
Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords]
3:45 pm
Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
We now move to part 2, which deals with terrorist acts and threats and the issue of jurisdiction. I should say at the outset that we welcome the provisions, notwithstanding that we are proposing a couple of probing amendments to them.
The amendments are identical in effect. They would add the following to the list of offences in proposed new clause 63B of the Terrorism Act 2000:
''aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring or inciting the commission of, or attempting or conspiring to commit, any of the offences in paragraphs (a) to (h)''.
That is the list already in the Bill. I am sure that it will not be disputed that they are all serious offences, that they are all connected to terrorism or similar, and that every measure must be taken to deal with them. I hope that the Minister will confirm that these offences are covered, but my concern is that if they are not, they are not in the Bill. They are in article 4 of the framework decision, which was clearly stated in the debate in the other place. The Government have set out a list of offences beginning at the bottom of page 31 and going on to page 32. Why does that not include the offences that we have listed in our amendment? Either a list is not produced in the Bill, as it is impossible to be sure that everything is covered, or an exhaustive list is produced. Those of us who have sat through many Committees have had this debate on several occasions. To have a list that is not exhaustive seems to fall between two stools.
The Government have listed a range of offences, with which I do not disagree, but they do not make it clear that the offences listed in amendment No. 66 are covered, despite the fact that they are in the framework decision. We are taking extra-territorial jurisdiction over substantive offences, which in itself is a major legal step, so we need to ensure that it is clear in the legislation what is covered. My point is simply one of clarification. Why, having started on the road to list offences covered by the clause, have the Government not listed all the offences? If I am right in assuming that the offences listed in our amendment are covered, why are they not in the Bill?