Schedule 15
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
4:00 pm
David Heath (Shadow Secretary of State for Justice & Lord Chancellor, Ministry of Justice; Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
I welcome you to the Committee this afternoon, Mr. O’Hara. Do not the provisions show the extraordinary nature of the Bill—that part 6 can go from extreme pornography to prostitution and street offences, and then to protection of nuclear material in a universal jurisdiction? Later, of course, we shall go on to consider the penalties for unlawfully obtaining personal data. All that is included in a single part of the Bill—a Bill without a theme, as has been said.
I have some questions on the schedule. I thought that I would be extraordinarily clever, but it turns out that I am not. I was going to query the word “nuclide” in proposed new subsection (8) of section 6 of the Nuclear Material (Offences) Act 1983, because I had always used the word “nucleide” when I learned chemistry many years ago, and I thought it was a misprint, but it turns out that they have changed the word. I hope that I shall get the credit at least for having done my research to ensure that I did not query the use of a word whose usage had changed. I should probably blame the Americans for eliding the perfectly serviceable word “nucleide” into “nuclide”.
The provision is extraordinary in the context of British law, which is not to say that I shall argue against it. The measure provides universal jurisdiction, which is familiar in American law, but which is rarely used in this country. It does not matter where offences occur—it could be anywhere in the world—they will be indictable in a British court, and it will not matter who in the world is alleged to have committed offences because anyone can be tried for them in a British court. It is a substantial undertaking. A matter that has no connection to the United Kingdom or any of its subjects could be put before a British court. We should at least be aware of the breadth of the applicability of the schedule as we debate it.
I should also address one specific measure in the schedule. Paragraph 6 on page 186 deals with nuclear facilities, which are explicitly defined as
“a facility used for peaceful purposes”.
In other words, a facility is excluded if it is not used for peaceful purposes, which is to say
“if it contains any nuclear material which is used or retained for military purposes.”
That proposal seems to be an oddity. If a nuclear facility can in any way be described as having a military application, either in itself or any material contained in the facility, it falls outside the scope of the offence and of the legislation.
It raises some interesting questions of applicability. For example, what about the nuclear facilities that we believe are being built in Iran. The President of Iran tells us that the facilities are being built exclusively for peaceful purposes, which would make removal of material from those facilities an offence under the schedule. On the other hand, the Government’s position is that the facilities are not for peaceful purposes; rather, they have a military purpose, in which case, in a British court, it could be adduced that they do not fall within the definition because some would argue that they have a military utility.
There might be a perfectly proper reason for the specific definition, but it seems curious and perhaps less well specified than it might be.