HL Deb 01 March 1982 vol 427 cc1115-21

2.54 p.m.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill is designed to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages. It is, I believe, non-controversial; and I hope that it will therefore be welcomed by your Lordships.

The convention was opened for signature at the United Nations in New York in December 1979 and signed by the United Kingdom at that time. It will come into force when 22 states have ratified it. Eleven ratifications and six accessions, making 17 in all out of the required 22, have already been deposited. Twenty-nine other states have signed, but not yet ratified, the convention. Because we wish to mark our firm opposition to the taking of hostages and to take all appropriate steps to discourage and prevent it, we should be ready to add our ratification to the convention and therefore help to bring the convention into force.

Under the convention—to put its fundamental principle very briefly—whenever a person seizes or detains and threatens to kill, injure or continue to detain a person in order to obtain something from someone, this constitutes the offence of hostage taking. The convention requires that, in such a case wherever it occurs, a state shall either submit the case for prosecution in its courts, or extradite the person for trial in another country which requests his extradition. Usually, where the events occurred abroad extradition will be the more practical and appropriate action. But the aim of the convention is to ensure, as far as possible, that the perpetrator of such an offence does not find a safe haven in another country, but will be either extradited or prosecuted.

I need not recall the many instances all over the world of the taking of hostages as part of campaigns of political terrorism. In the light of the seizure and subsequent release in Italy of General Dozier, no one needs reminding of the inhuman menace of terrorism. But it is not only a remote possibility affecting other countries; the successful resolution of the Tanzanian aircraft hijack this weekend and the events of the Iranian Embassy siege in London in May 1980 are to the forefront of our minds. The British Ambassador in Montevideo, Mr. Geoffrey Jackson, was held as a hostage for eight months. The convention seeks to combat such terrorist acts. Like the convention, however, the Bill is not limited to taking of hostages for purposes connected with political terrorism. It applies equally to the taking of a hostage falling within its scope for the purpose of private gain or in pursuit of some private object.

This convention is only the most recent in a series designed to deal with specific problems. In 1970, the Hague Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, usually known as the Convention on Hijacking, was adopted by an international conference. The following year the Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation was similarly adopted. Legislation was enacted shortly afterwards to give effect to these conventions. Within the United Nations, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons was adopted in 1973 and we enacted legislation to give effect to it in 1978. All of these followed the principle I have referred to above; namely, that the offenders should either be extradited or prosecuted.

The present Bill is the latest in this series. It follows very largely the earlier legislation, and I therefore do not think I need comment further on it in general terms. After this brief account of the background, it may be useful if I outline the main provisions of the Bill.

The Title draws attention to the link with the international convention. Clause 1 defines the offence of taking hostages. A person convicted of the offence is liable to imprisonment for life. Clause 2 provides that the consent of the Attorney-General in England and Wales, and the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland in that Province, shall be required for a prosecution. It also provides for the jurisdiction of the courts in Scotland. Finally, it adds the offence of taking hostages as defined for the purposes of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. This means that it will become one of the offences under that Act which are tried under special procedures appropriate for the trial of terrorist offences. Clause 3 deals with the extradition of offenders accused of an offence as defined in the Bill. Subsection (1) provides appropriate amendments to the extradition Act 1870, which provides for agreements with foreign countries, and the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967, which applies a similar procedure for Commonwealth countries and dependent territories. Subsection (2) provides for the extradition in this particular case of the taking of hostages in other countries.

Clause 4 is designed to give effect to Article 9 of the convention. Under that article, to put the matter very briefly, a contracting state should not grant extradition if there are grounds for believing that the request is for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of his race, religion, ethnic origin or political opinion or if a person concerned may be disadvantaged for one of those reasons because he is unable to communicate with the state entitled to exercise rights of protection. But it is necessary in this Bill to deal with the case where a person might be disadvantaged at his trial by reason of the impossibility of effecting communications between him and the appropriate authorities of the state entitled to exercise rights of protection in relation to him. Therefore, this clause inserts a clause in the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 making it possible to refuse to transfer a prisoner in such a case.

Clause 5 provides for the application to the Channel Islands, Isle of Man and Colonies of this Act. Clause 6 gives the short title and provides for a date of entry into force to be set by Order in Council. I am naturally willing to give a fuller explanation of any particular matter which may exercise your Lordships, but in the meantime I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Trefgarne.)

3.2 p.m.

Lord Wigoder

My Lords, the House will, I know, want to express its gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for the very clear way in which he has explained the objects of the Bill. I should like to welcome it on behalf of my noble friends and also on behalf of noble friends in the SDP. It is indeed gratifying to find Her Majesty's Government among the forerunners of those who are ratifying an international convention. It is in marked contrast to the way in which the Government have been dragging their heels over the European Convention on Human Rights.

After the events of this weekend it is, of course, an appropriate afternoon upon which to be debating this Bill. I do not propose to make any comment about those events, tempting though it might be, partly because of the fact that some four people have been arrested and partly because it is a matter which is sub judice and might amount outside the House to a contempt of court if one were to comment upon it. I do of course appreciate that in recent months a convention has grown up that if a case is sufficiently notorious the media may flagrantly disregard the rules about contempt of court with complete impunity. All I need say, and I hope it will be thought proper to say it, is that I am sure your Lordships will agree that all those who took part at Stansted Airport ought to be congratulated upon the firmness and determination which was shown.

The effect of the Bill will depend upon the extent to which ratification on accession becomes widespread. There will inevitably be the cowboy states who will refuse to have any sort of agreement with the objects of the Bill and who may from time to time provide harbour for hostage takers. But the more that the countries of at least the civilised world can join together to deal with this menace the more effective the steps will be. Therefore, the only matter I would like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, about is this: it is right, is it not, that among the countries which have so far ratified or acceded to this convention there are very few among the European Community (my information is only Germany and ourselves, but there may he another) and, similarly, only very few states which are members of the British Commonwealth? Could the noble Lord indicate that Her Majesty's Government are going to use all their influence with our partners in Europe and with our partners in the Commonwealth to get the maximum degree of ratification or accession to the treaty in order that it can be made as effective as possible?

Lord Paget of Northampton

My Lords, I think few people have been more pressing than have I on Governments to proceed against offenders against international order and particularly against those acting for assassin states, but I am anxious about some of the provisions of Clause 1. I am sure it is my neglect that I did not come across the Bill earlier and give the Government earlier notice, and I hope that they will forgive me. Clause I says: A person, whatever his nationality, who, in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, without lawful excuse, …". So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, that presents no difficulty at all. It is an offence against the common law and the sentence is unlimited. But when one comes to "elsewhere, without lawful excuse" one needs a little clarification.

Is "lawful excuse" the orders of his Government? If it is, then any Libyan, to take an example, walks out. He is authorised by his Government. If it is not, then one may be up against very considerable problems. Our own military law authorises a commanding general occupying enemy territory to take hostages to provide for the security of his forces. If that is not the law now it certainly was until very recently, and I would certainly regard it as a very necessary provision. It is virtually impossible when defending an occupying force for the officer who is responsible for the lives of his troops not to take hostages. We certainly did so in the last war. I would not be happy to see somebody take advantage of this Bill when it becomes an Act to try to indict some of our own soldiers who took very necessary wartime action.

Therefore I would ask the Government to say what "without lawful excuse" means. Is it the command of the accused's prince, his Government, the person to whom he owes authority, or is it not? If it is his own law under which he did it, are we not going to exclude a good many of the worst people that we want to get hold of? If it is not, are there not going to be some considerable difficulties ahead? Before we go a little further with this Bill, will the Government consider these difficulties with care?

3.9 P.m.

Lord Bishopston

My Lords, first may I thank the Minister for the way in which he has presented the Bill and for the information which he has given. While it may appear fortuitous that the Bill is before your Lordships' House today, the events of the weekend have shown yet again the diversity and the many forms of such happenings. The events over the years, both here and abroad, have been such as to give public confidence and assurance and are bound to warn potential offenders of the dwindling hopes of success if they attempt such outrages here in Great Britain or, indeed, elsewhere.

We welcome the Bill, as there appears to be no adequate legislation at present which does the task intended by this measure. As we all know, terrorism knows no frontiers and has grown in recent years to what might aptly be termed a terrifying extent. Over many years, the rather cruder procedure of the hijacking of aircraft in flight has grown more sophisticated and the forms of terrorism have taken other aspects as well —on land, as shown by various sieges and events in this country. In these situations, the people concerned have had made very clear to them, in their saner moments, that society will not tolerate such grave offences against humanity.

Possibly the most important aspect of the Bill is that it is required to implement our national obligations under the international convention, which was opened for signature in New York in December 1979. That was over two years ago and there is still much progress to be made in ratification, as the noble Lord the Minister may have indicated by the figures he gave us a few moments ago. We know that until there is full signature and ratification by member states, until we are all parties to the convention, there can be no effective or preventive measures, nationally or internationally. It is essential to take all the steps we can to see that the procedure is made watertight and effective, and the sooner nations do that the better for all concerned.

The crime being dealt with by the Bill is a most serious one. The situations detailed in Clause 1 appear to cover every situation where the taking of hostages is involved, and so far mankind has experienced all these situations in some form. But as we know, there seems to be no limit to the diversity and inventiveness of those involved. We have seen that no matter how powerful nations may be in terms of weapons, techniques and resources, they are often powerless when faced with such situations, where any action could result in injury to or the death of people. This is unacceptable and there is unbearable suspense created in the minds of hostages, relatives and those who care about the hostages' wellbeing. A terrible price is exacted in the terror of innocent people, and therefore the penalities in the Bill seem to be reasonable.

Throughout the world, peoples of many nations have sacrificed much, even life itself, to bring about the initiation or extension of democracy and the right of free speech. Any pressure of this sort on nations to change their minds, or to change their reactions to individuals, is quite unacceptable. As we all know, the nations of the world are faced with the most difficult situations, from which the most serious consequences may arise if individuals and countries are held to ransom. Therefore the penalties must be appropriate, and the sentence must be not only to punish but also to deter and ensure that offenders are unable to be at large to repeat their crimes or to encourage others. The events of the past weekend are reassuring. For some time Britain has developed procedures which make it clear what hijackers may expect here. We must also seek to ensure safety for passengers, and especially for British travellers elsewhere in the world. Hence ratification of the convention and the carrying out of the regulations all over the world is vital and should be brought about as early as possible.

But of course, laws alone cannot ensure safety; and the manner in which they are carried out is vital, too. The understanding of motives, the psychology, patience and perseverance of those dealing with these problems are also matters of great consequence. In this, Britain is setting a lead in restoring confidence in the British character and tradition for fairness and firmness in the face of provocation.

The noble Lord the Minister has already given figures on how many countries have ratified the agreement and how many have signed it. Can he tell us whether there are any major countries which have not done so to date, and whether any have indicated that they may refuse to agree to sign the convention, or to ratify? May I ask him also what kind of liaison there is between countries with regard to the exchange of experience and information regarding techniques for dealing with these incidents? These are very important matters, because having power to take action when an event happens on your own soil is all very well, but having the know-how to deal with it successfully so that the risk to life and property is minimised is also a considerable factor.

Clause 3 mentions extradition procedures, even when there is no agreement. Is the Minister satisfied that Clause 3 is adequate for dealing with situations where there are no extradition procedures between us and other countries? While some nations, perhaps even one or two, may delay or even refuse to ratify the convention, there will be provided destinations for hijackers and kidnappers and the great danger to our citizens and others will still exist.

I believe that this Bill is timely. I hope that we shall not only get it through this House and the other place in the minimum amount of time, but also that we shall be assured that other countries who at the moment may be providing havens for those concerned will be encouraged to come into line and provide the maximum co-operation in dealing with this great international problem.

3.16 p.m.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I am grateful for the kind and constructive remarks of support which have been given to the general provisions of this Bill. Perhaps I could deal with just one or two of the points which have been raised during the course of the debate. The question was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and underlined by the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, of signature, ratification and indeed accession to this convention. I hesitate to read out a long list of the countries which have signed, ratified or acceded, but if noble Lords wish, I should be glad to send them a list of the countries which have done so. As I said, 17 states have already ratified or acceded to the convention and they are drawn from almost all parts of the world, including the Federal Republic of Germany, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Chile, the Bahamas, Barbados, Trinidad, Tobago, Egypt, Kenya and the Philippines. Apart from Eastern Europe, which I am sorry to say is not represented, this shows a wide geographical distribution. The number of signatories, that is to say countries which have signed the convention but have not yet ratified it, include the United States, Canada, Italy and New Zealand as well as a large number of countries in other parts of the world.

The noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, asked me about "lawful excuse". Lawful excuse is a justification in law where the taking of hostages occurs. A Government could not authorise such acts abroad. As to the laws in time of war, which the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, mentioned, certainly that is a very important and relevant point. In fact, it is rather a complex legal point and, if the noble Lord will allow me, I will take some careful advice on that matter and write to him as soon as I can.

The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, referred to events over the last weekend. We are all happy that the hijacking at Stansted ended safely. Incidentally, the hijackers are now in police custody. Charges are likely to be brought, and in these circumstances I hope your Lordships will agree that it would not be right for me to comment further on any aspects of the matter.

Lord Paget of Northampton

My Lords, if I might ask the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, just one more question, is our rule that we do not extradite for offences which have a political basis, affected by this Bill?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I was seeking to take advice on this very point earlier this morning. Like the previous point raised by the noble Lord, it proved to be a particularly complex one and perhaps 1 can include a reference to that second question when I write to the noble Lord.

The noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, asked me two questions about Clause 3 and about the exchange of experience in these matters. Again, I do not have that information immediately before me but perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to write to him with a full explanation of the position on those two points. I do not believe it will be necessary for me to make any further general comments. I hope that the answers I have given and the undertakings I have made in respect of corresponding with various noble Lords will enable your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.