Taken from yesterdays Hansard.
Counter Terrorism and Security Bill
Sir William Cash: I am concerned, and have been for a long time,
about the apparent not indifference to but unawareness of the danger facing
citizens of the United Kingdom if jihadists of the kind I will describe in
moment—my amendment 22 provides a definition—return to the UK and commit
horrible and appalling atrocities similar to that which we witnessed in the
case of Lee Rigby. I ask hon. Members to think about what they would say if one
of their constituents were murdered in that unbelievably atrocious manner. I
also ask them to consider whether there are people among the many hundreds—some
suggest thousands—who have already gone abroad who may wish to return under
cover of their jihadist activity and perpetrate and perpetuate their activities
in our own homeland of the United Kingdom. If such murders and atrocities were
committed, would our constituents and the British public as a whole think it
right that those people had a right of abode here? I think that most of the
British public would say that if the circumstances defined in my amendment were
complied with, they would not want those people to return to the United
Kingdom.
One then turns to the question of whether those
people’s human rights and the issue of statelessness are such that they should
override those considerations. I am profoundly concerned and disturbed to hear
some colleagues suggest that a person’s right of abode, so-called human rights
and the need not to be rendered stateless are so overriding that they should
prevail even in the circumstances I have described and even following the
atrocities that I fear could occur.
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member
for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) for his support, but I happen to know from
discussions I have had that many other Members very much agree with the
sentiments expressed in my amendments. I sincerely trust that, whatever
happens—I have yet to decide whether I will press my amendment to a vote—the
matter can be looked at again in the House of Lords.
I have heard on many occasions, both from Front
Benchers and others, about the evidence that the Joint Committee on Human
Rights received from Mr David Anderson, the independent reviewer of terrorism.
I have looked at those proceedings, but nobody asked any questions about the
1961 convention on the reduction of statelessness, which lies at the heart of
the issue. In September I heard Mr Anderson and others, some of whom are
present, on the “Today” programme, strongly asserting the arguments that have
now been made on the Floor of the House. I wonder whether they have reflected
on the implications for the British public if we do not take proper measures to
exclude the right people,
6 Jan 2015 : Column 190
by which I mean those who are pronounced jihadists and who, if they were to
return, would by all accounts be likely to perpetrate the kinds of atrocities I
have mentioned.
When the Prime Minister made his statement on 1
September 2014, I was concerned, having just heard so many contributions on the
radio, about the importance attached to people not being made stateless and so
forth, and about their human rights being of such overriding importance,
irrespective of the impact they might have on the public or of individuals
being murdered in atrocious circumstances. I asked the Prime Minister:
“On
the matter of statelessness and preventing British terrorist jihadists from
returning to the United Kingdom, has my right hon. Friend been briefed that,
under article 8 of the United Nations convention on statelessness, domestic
legislation in certain countries may render a person stateless where he has
acted inconsistently with his duty of loyalty, has behaved in a way prejudicial
to the interests of the state or has declared allegiance to another state and
shown evidence of repudiation of allegiance? Does he not accept that that is
exactly where we are now, and that it would be extremely important to get that
right so that the Leader of the Opposition”—
who had made some derogatory remarks to the Prime
Minister on that—
“understands
that the matter can be made clear?”
The Prime Minister replied:
“My
hon. Friend makes a good point, which shows exactly why we need to discuss and
examine this issue further. The reason why everyone will want us to examine
this is that it absolutely sticks in the craw that someone can go from this
country to Syria, declare jihad, make all sorts of plans to start doing us
damage and then contemplate returning to Britain having declared their
allegiance to another state. That is the problem that we need to address, and
my hon. Friend will be useful in doing so.”—[
Official Report, 1
September 2014; Vol. 585, c. 34.]
Well, his hon. Friend will continue to be useful in
that respect, because I think that it is very important that we properly
examine in this debate not only potential atrocities but the legal basis on
which arguments are presented both for and against such orders.
I have corresponded with the Minister for Security and
Immigration. If he was good enough to listen, he might want to intervene
because I am about to refer to our correspondence. I am failing in my attempt,
so perhaps his Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for
Hexham (Guy Opperman), could give him a nudge.
[Interruption.] That is
very good of him. I just want to let the Minister know that I am about to refer
to correspondence between me and the Department.
I wrote to the Minister, and had a reply. I will not go
into every aspect of it, but I found that I had to write to him again on 15
December.
His letter alleged that the convention on the reduction of
statelessness did not really apply, but I made a point about article 8(3). The
beginning of article 8(1) of the convention—bear in mind that the United
Kingdom has signed it—clearly says:
“A
Contracting State shall not deprive a person of its nationality if such
deprivation would render him stateless.”
However, article 8(3) goes on:
“Notwithstanding
the provisions of paragraph 1…a Contracting State may retain the right to
deprive a person of his nationality”.
Some states have and some have not gone along with the
arrangements, but the article goes on to give the basis on which a state may
retain the right to deprive a
6 Jan 2015 : Column 191
person of his nationality, and that is very much in line with the proposed
new subsection (6A) in my amendment 22. It is clearly founded on the exclusions
from the provisions of article 8(1).
2.15 pm
The Government have prescribed conditions A to D for
temporary exclusion orders, which include making reasonable assumptions at
certain decision-making points, all of which would be subject to judicial
review. In line with the international convention on the reduction of
statelessness 1961, and using almost the same words, I propose a new condition:
“Condition
E is that the Secretary of State has provided evidence, whether or not
conditions A to D are met, to substantiate that the individual has,
inconsistently with his duty of loyalty to the United Kingdom, conducted
himself in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United
Kingdom and that he has taken an oath, or made a formal declaration of
allegiance to another state or”—
to deal with ISIL—
“territory
seized, governed or administered de facto by an organisation demanding
allegiance to that organisation, having given definite evidence of his
determination to repudiate his allegiance to the United Kingdom.”
The decision is made on the basis not of whimsy but of
someone repudiating allegiance to the United Kingdom and adopting allegiance to
the new state or to a territory taken over by jihadists.
Given the potential danger to individual members of the
British public, it seems to me inconceivable that we should not accept
amendment 22. A lot of wishy-washy human rights waffle does not make any
difference whatever to the reality of the present and clear danger facing the
British people. It is going to happen, and if it does, I fear that those who
have refused to listen will be responsible. It is no good talking about the
common law or the human rights of the individuals concerned. The British people
simply will not countenance it. I am certain of that fact.
Part of the issue turns on the question of allegiance,
and Members should therefore be concerned to understand that acts constituting
treason cover anyone who owes allegiance to the Crown. Anyone who owes
commitment to the Crown may commit treason. The essence of the offence of
treason lies in the violation of the allegiance owed to the sovereign. Natural
allegiance is due from all British subjects at all times wherever they may be.
The House is clearly determined that there should be
temporary exclusion orders for the circumstances described; in other words,
before such people come back to this country, they can have an order imposed on
them. If that assumption is used as the basis of temporary exclusion orders and
the people in question are in fact guilty of treason on their own
admission—they have provided definite evidence of repudiating their allegiance,
and have claimed allegiance to a new state and/or territory of the kind I have
described—then it absolutely follows that they fall full square within the proposal
in my amendment 22 and should therefore not be allowed to return.
