HL Deb 14 November 2001 vol 628 cc564-6

2.55 p.m.

Lord Rotherwick

asked Her Majesty's Government:

How many police investigations are under way under the Terrorism Act 2000 with a view to deporting terrorists.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker)

My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's Question is none. Investigations under the Terrorism Act 2000 are a matter entirely for the police. It is for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether to pursue a prosecution. Since 11th September, 41 people have been arrested under the Act. Six are presently remanded in police custody. However, the Immigration Act 1971 allows the Home Secretary to take deportation action against any individual, if their presence in the United Kingdom is deemed not be conducive to the public good.

Lord Rotherwick

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his helpful Answer. Will he join me in applauding Syria on its recent action? It has extradited to Egypt Refaie Ahmed Taha, the terrorist behind the shooting of 28 British and foreign tourists in Luxor in 1997? Are the Government considering whether they should follow the example set by Syria in extraditing terrorists even if they may face the death penalty in the country to which they are extradited?

Lord Rooker

My Lords, the answer to the final part of the noble Lord's question is no. In response to the first part, I must be honest and say that I am not briefed to comment in detail on it. The noble Lord is entitled to ask me about such questions, but it simply would not be possible to give a brief response

However, under the terms of our extradition procedure, of the six people currently remanded in police custody—I emphasise that—two are among a total of 10 who are subject to extradition warrants. Of the 41 people I mentioned, 13 more were released into the custody of the Immigration Service. Thus they are being detained, but they are not in police custody. The subject of extradition is complex and we shall bring forward an extradition Bill in the early part of next year. However, we shall not seek powers to extradite people to countries where they would face torture or the death penalty. We shall seek other means of extradition, some details of which were included in the Bill published yesterday.

Lord Goodhart

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Home Secretary's powers to issue a deportation order should and will remain subject to the power of judicial review?

Lord Rooker

My Lords, I do not believe that we have any plans to change that system. We seek to introduce changes to aspects of judicial review, the details of which were included in the Bill published yesterday. We have made it clear why we intend to make those changes. No one has been denied the right to review the terms of their detention sentence. The detainee can appeal on a point of law to the Court of Appeal and, if necessary, to the House of Lords, so in that sense we are removing judicial review. We are taking steps to make the process faster, while making it fairer, in order that it should not be abused by the legal trade.

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the reluctance of the Government to resort to deportation to some countries in which there is the possibility of the use of the death penalty could lead to this country becoming, in certain circumstances, a haven for international terrorists? In turn, that could be interpreted as an incitement to violence in this country.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, the noble Lord is asking me to derogate not only from the European Convention on Human Rights, but in fact to get out of something to which this country has been a signatory under both governments for over 50 years. That is the implication if knowingly we return people to countries where they will face the death penalty. No one has suggested that we should pull away completely from the European Convention on Human Rights. If we are holding people who, we believe, are in that situation and we cannot take forward a criminal prosecution simply because the evidence is based on Security Service or surveillance sources and thus cannot be put before a court, but we believe that those people pose a threat to public safety, we are limited in our choices. We can allow them to roam free in this country; we can deport them to a safe third country, if one can be found; or we detain them. Those are three choices. We have put forward the last alternative in the Bill. It will be for others to choose between the three options. However, I should stress that we have only those three from which to choose.

Lord Marsh

My Lords, would the Minister agree that it is precisely the situation he has outlined which, for the past 40 years, has made this country the recipient of regular complaints from several countries that the UK has for many years been a safe home for terrorist groups?

Lord Rooker

My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. Such allegations have been made. But, given the contents of the Bill we published yesterday—which, subject to parliamentary scrutiny, will become an Act before the end of the year—I do not think that anyone, anywhere, friend or foe, will be in a position to say that this country is a safe haven for terrorists. The Bill is being brought forward to block a series of loopholes. If each loophole had been taken in isolation, Parliament would probably have said it was a step too far. In the present circumstances, it is a modest, precautionary and proportionate approach to the situation that the country faces.

Lord Davies of Coity

My Lords, does my noble friend unequivocally agree that, in the present circumstances, the safety and security of the British people, of this nation, is of overriding importance? If that means a reduction in civil liberties and human rights, then so be it.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend. I cannot quote Article 1 verbatim, but I believe that it refers to the right to life. That is why it is Article 1.

Lord Renton

My Lords, can the Minister say what proportion of those so far investigated were admitted to this country as asylum seekers?

Lord Rooker

My Lords, I cannot. I do not have the individual details of the 13 people who have been released into the custody of the Immigration Service but, quite clearly, this step has been taken because of some factor relating to immigration legislation. Whether they came here as visitors and overstayed, or whether they came as asylum seekers, I am not in a position to say. If I can obtain the details, I shall write to the noble Lord.

Viscount Waverley

My Lords, what is the Government's position when receiving a complaint from a friendly government about a terrorist group which is not on the UK list of proscribed terrorists?

Lord Rooker

My Lords, if we receive a complaint, we obviously look at the case. The list has been added to considerably since 11th September—I believe there are now more than 35 organisations listed—and if someone has a complaint about its legitimacy, about a mistake in the list or about a case which they think has not received a proper hearing, we will receive their representations.