IMF

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is completely right that providing additional resources to the IMF will not solve the eurozone’s problems, I said that in my statement. It is about making sure that the IMF is prepared for whatever is coming down the track—prepared for the worst, rather than just hoping for the best, and of course we do all hope that things improve. My hon. Friend is also right that the eurozone countries need to work more closely together in terms of the fiscal integration of their policies. That is one of the reasons why I did not want Britain to join the euro and would never want Britain to join the euro. The logic of a single currency is that devaluation is not possible and different inflation rates cannot be manufactured in different countries. The end result is the transfer of large sums of money from German taxpayers to Spanish taxpayers. That is their decision by being part of the currency; our decision is to make sure that the world is ready in case that does not come about.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

One of the communiqués following the summit referred to the need to pursue solutions for malnutrition and food insecurity, as well as fragile states. I support the loan for those purposes, but how can we be sure that the money will end up supporting countries such as Yemen, which has just been through a presidential election and desperately needs support from the IMF and the World Bank?

[Mr Osborne]

The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to draw attention to the fact that, although we have been talking a lot about the eurozone, the IMF does a great deal of important work in low-income countries. As I said, there are 53 programmes, of which only three—albeit they are very large ones—are in the eurozone. At the IMF I specifically intervened to ask that the IMF’s windfall profits from recent gold sales be used to reduce the interest costs for low-income countries that undertake IMF programmes, to make sure that they have access to the increase in resources we are talking about today.

Banking (Responsibility and Reform)

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes with concern that the recent Bank of England publication, Trends in Lending, shows that net lending to businesses has fallen in nine out of the last 12 months and by more than £10 billion in the last year; further notes that a Department for Business, Innovation and Skills report published on 2 February 2012 states that the stock of lending to small and medium-sized enterprises peaked in 2009 and in November 2011 declined by 6.1 per cent. compared to November 2010, whilst banks were frequently setting bonuses for their senior executives which were too large; believes that bank executive remuneration should be related to performance and that banks either directly or indirectly supported by the taxpayer must recognise that the taxpayer expects very large bonuses only to be paid to reflect genuine exceptional performance; notes with concern that the Government has not given due consideration to repeating the bankers’ bonus tax, in addition to the bank levy, to pay for 100,000 jobs for young people; calls on the Government to increase transparency, accountability and responsibility in the setting of pay in the banking sector, including through the immediate implementation of the Walker Review on corporate governance, and the placing of an employee representative on the remuneration committees of company boards; and further calls on the Government to reform the banking sector so that it better supports businesses and provides the credit they need to create jobs and growth.

I should like to take this opportunity to tell the House that I have been informed that the Business Secretary is not able to be here today because he is at a funeral. I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in wishing him well on this sad day.

The subject of the motion, responsibility and reform in the banking sector and in the wider economy, has been a matter of immense public interest of late and is one on which many Members have already spoken out. Let us be clear—I think I speak for most Members when I say this—that in speaking out on these issues hon. Members simply reflect the strong views expressed by our constituents on the subject.

The Labour party’s starting point is this: we are proud of our financial services centre, the City of London being arguably the world’s leading financial services centre. I, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who will make the Opposition’s winding-up speech, and many other Members are, I know, proud to have spent time working in the City of London before being elected to this place.

The City helps to give the country a competitive edge, thanks to the talent that we have here, our time zone, our company law, our jurisdiction and the free flow of capital in London. The financial services sector as a whole employs more than 1 million people nationally and makes up 10% of our total national income, but no witness to recent history could claim with credibility that the sector has functioned as British businesses, our economy and our society as a whole would have wanted over the past few years.

Ultimately, the fault for that lies with a minority of those working in the sector, but as the party in government through much of that period we, along with others in power throughout the world, must, and we do, accept with humility that we should have better regulated the sector, because dysfunction in the banking sector here and globally led to the financial crisis of 2008-09, to the recession that followed and to its aftermath. That recession, the gestation of which is found in the banking sector, is something for which the British people are still paying.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the current structures were set up following the closure of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International 20 years ago. There remain within the Treasury the confidential parts of the Bingham report. Does he think that it is time that those confidential parts were published? That would give us a better understanding of exactly what went wrong in the biggest collapse of a bank in British history.

[Mr Umunna]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. I know that that is something for which he has campaigned for a long time.

We all know the facts. From the middle of 2007, the losses sustained on securities backed by sub-prime mortgage assets led to a credit crunch. That credit crunch came about due to a loss of counterparty confidence and uncertainty about which financial institutions held toxic assets. Depressed asset prices and increased losses led to serious solvency issues in major banks here and in the United States.

In the US, Bear Stearns had to be rescued by J. P. Morgan, Lehman Brothers collapsed, and AIG was nationalised in 2008 by that well known socialist, the 43rd President of the United States, George Bush. Here, Northern Rock had already been nationalised by the Labour Government by 2008. Later that year, we put in place a £500 billion package of measures designed to recapitalise the banks. That included the special liquidity scheme and inter-bank lending guarantees. The Labour Government took stakes in two of our biggest banks so that, by the end of 2009, the Government held a stake in Lloyds of just over 40% and a stake in RBS that increased to more than 80%.

For all the criticism that is often heaped on my right hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) and for Kircaldidy—sorry, for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown)—by Government Members, I believe that we owe a debt of gratitude to them both for the decisive action that they took to save the system from itself, to secure people’s savings and to ensure that the people we represent could continue to withdraw money from cash machines in the wall. The Opposition are proud of what they achieved.

As the Independent Commission on Banking stated:

“without the intervention of national authorities around the world—requiring taxpayers to incur significant direct costs and larger contingent liabilities—the consequences of the crisis would have been immeasurably worse.”

It is for that reason that this House has every right to take an interest in remuneration and reform in the banking sector. After all, our banks still benefit from an implicit taxpayer subsidy if they fail.

Health

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham). I am sure that the whole House will wish her well in her pursuit of those cases on behalf of her constituents.

I want to talk about diabetes. I discovered that I had type 2 diabetes only a few years ago, when I went to visit my local GP. He had asked me to open a diabetes awareness day. I turned up, and blood was taken from my finger. People like taking blood from politicians. I was told that someone would ring me the next day to tell me whether I had managed to get into the local newspaper. Dr Farooqi rang me. He said that the good news was that I was on the front page of the Leicester Mercury, and that the bad news was that I had type 2 diabetes.

With diabetes, we are facing a health tsunami. There are now 2.8 million people in the UK suffering from the condition. Worldwide, the figure is a staggering 346 million. It is the fifth most common cause of death in the world, and it is undoubtedly a health concern of epidemic proportions. The International Diabetes Federation predicts that if the situation is allowed to continue on its current path, 522 million people worldwide—one in every 10—will have diabetes by 2030.

In recent months the work of diabetes charities has gained a significant momentum. I would like to congratulate the International Diabetes Federation, led by its president Jean-Claude Mbaya, on hosting the World Diabetes Congress in Dubai, which I attended and at which I spoke briefly. We are going to have a British president of the federation in two years’ time—Sir Michael Hirst. I wish him well. I also commend the work of Diabetes UK and its chief executive, Baroness Young, as well as that of a charity in my constituency that I had the honour to help establish, Silver Star. It came here to test MPs for diabetes. It has worked in partnership with organisations, including the Leicester Mercury, and helped to light up its iconic headquarters in blue on world diabetes day, 14 November.

For the purposes of this debate I shall refer to type 2 diabetes, which is the type that 90% of people with diabetes around the world have. Diabetes is currently the leading cause of blindness, amputation, renal disease and cardiovascular disease. On average it reduces life expectancy by 10 years. Each week 100 people with diabetes lose a toe, foot or lower limb due to the condition. In 2010 an estimated 4,200 people lost their sight due to diabetic retinopathy. This figure increases by 1,280 a year. Only last week we were told in a Government-commissioned report that 24,000 people with diabetes are dying avoidably each year because they do not receive the right health care or do not manage their condition properly.

It is estimated that diabetes care accounts for 10% of the NHS annual budget—£9 billion a year, or £1 million an hour. Diabetes prescriptions account for 7% of NHS costs. These staggering costs will only increase unless this illness is prevented and contained.

We are now 12 days from new year’s eve—a time to make new resolutions. I urge the Minister—the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Angela Watkinson)—to adopt my five resolutions. The first is to increase the level of education and awareness—including among ourselves: 10% of those sitting in the Chamber today will have diabetes without knowing it. And anyone walking into the Tea Room, as I have just done, will be offered every sweet and chocolate they could possibly want, and drinks loaded with sugar.

We need to make sure that, particularly in Olympics year, we get people to engage in physical activity. We also need to adopt the “fat tax” adopted in Denmark to try to make manufacturers responsible for what they sell. We must ensure that there is universal screening. Although the Government are currently committed to screening, it is not as widespread as we would like. Between April and June this year only 2.7% of eligible patients received a health check.

I want to ensure that we look carefully for ways to prevent the south Asian community in particular from getting diabetes. They suffer more from contracting it, as they are particularly susceptible to it as a group.

Finally, speaking as someone who has to get a prescription from my GP every month, I believe it absurd that there are 15 separate companies all producing different blood glucose testing strips. I often go to the pharmacy to get my prescription, but they give me the wrong strip for the wrong machine. It is vital that we ensure that there is one common strip.

Diabetes is a worldwide problem. My message is simple: no more declarations, no more fine words, no more summits: if we are to try to save lives, we need action now.

Banking Commission Report

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

The RBS-ABN AMRO deal stands out as the moment of greatest folly in banking regulation, not just because—[Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor was the City Minister. He has incredible amnesia about his role, but thankfully we are here to remind him. It is extraordinary that the ABN AMRO deal was given the go-ahead after Northern Rock had failed. People do not appreciate the fact that it happened after that. We were highly critical of the Government’s regulatory system then, and we remain highly critical of the regulatory system that we inherited.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

On 16 June 2010 the Chancellor told me that he would read the confidential parts of the Bingham report on the closure of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International and seek urgent advice from the Treasury about whether he should publish them. I do not know what the definition of “urgent” is in the Treasury, but 18 months seems like a very long time. I know that he has been busy, but has he read the report and will he now publish it?

[Mr Osborne]

The good news is that I have read the report. The bad news, from the right hon. Gentleman’s point of view, is that I do not propose to publish the appendices. Of course, my predecessors also took that decision. I have looked into the matter, and the view remains that publishing the appendices would not add substantially to people’s understanding of what went wrong, and that they would probably require extensive redacting, which would not only be expensive but still leave people with suspicions, even if those suspicions were unfounded. I have taken the same view that I believe the last three or four of my predecessors took.

Eurozone Crisis

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend asks some interesting questions. I think that I would rather be here in the House than in Cannes at the moment—[Interruption.] It is important that Parliament should hold Ministers to account on these matters, and I am here to answer its questions. On my hon. Friend’s first question about the strength of the UK banks, there has been a process with the leadership, through the European Banking Authority, which is based here in London, and it concluded that the UK banks did not need to be recapitalised. That is partly a consequence of the measures taken over the past two or three years to increase banks’ holdings of capital and highly liquid assets, which have helped to ensure that they are to an extent insulated from the problems in the euro area.

On my hon. Friend’s wider question about the strength of the European banks, I can tell him that, in calculating the amount of additional capital that banks should hold, the EBA determined that they should hold 9% core tier 1, and that, crucially, their holdings of sovereign debt should be marked to market rather than held at face value. That led to the calculation that banks across Europe need to hold an additional €100 billion of capital.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

May I urge the Minister not to join others who are criticising Greece for its decision to hold a referendum? George Papandreou is a decent and honourable man, and at the end of the day, if he wishes to put this to the Greek people, it is a matter for them. Whatever their decision—I hope that they will vote to accept the bail-out—we should accept it. This is a country that has voted with us on the European Council on many occasions over the last 20 years.

[Mr Hoban]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. This is a matter for the Greek people and the Greek Government to decide. That is a principle to which I am sure everyone in the House would wish to adhere.

Sovereign Grant Bill

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

May I make some progress before taking a few further interventions?

I should just mention, although the change to the Duchy of Cornwall is in a later clause, that as I explained to the House a couple of weeks ago, all Dukes of Cornwall are heirs to the throne, but not all heirs to the throne are Dukes of Cornwall. As a result, there is potential for there to be an heir to the throne who was not the Duke of Cornwall, because the Duke of Cornwall can only be the eldest son of the monarch. The heir to the throne could be either a daughter, granddaughter or grandson of the monarch, and they would not have access to the duchy’s income. The Bill proposes a change to that, but does not propose to change the Act of Settlement.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Osborne]

I suspect that the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee wants to intervene on that point.

[Keith Vaz]

I feel very guilty that the Chancellor has been speaking for so long and, because of all the interventions, is only on clause 1. I will not detain him for long, but I thank him for giving way. Will he update the House during the course of his speech, if he ever gets to complete it, on the negotiations that have been conducted by the Deputy Prime Minister with the Prime Ministers of 17 other Commonwealth countries, and let us know whether there has been any progress on the matter?

[Mr Osborne]

I think I will leave it to the Deputy Prime Minister to update the House on that. It is one of the many benefits that come from being Deputy Prime Minister that he gets to conduct these important negotiations. [Interruption.] They are extremely important negotiations. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) makes a good point in reminding the House that this question involves a lot of other countries. That explains why something that people assume would be quite simple to deal with in the House of Commons is not.

Let me talk about the actual numbers. How much is 15% of the Crown Estate profit, and how does it compare with what the royal family has spent in recent years on its official duties? In 2006, they spent £33 million; in 2007-08, they spent £35 million; and then £37 million and £34 million. The latest annual accounts, which were last week, showed that they spent £32 million. The amount varies a bit, because one-off capital projects are either undertaken or not in given years, but the average of the past five years is £34 million. It is interesting to note that it was £49 million 20 years ago, so the latest figure shows quite a dramatic reduction compared with what they used to spend. In real terms, the reduction is more than 50%.

Sovereign Grant Bill (Allocation of Time)

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I will detain the House for only a very short time. First, I strongly agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South—

[Mr Winnick]

Walsall North. Walsall South is your sister.

[Keith Vaz]

Walsall North (Mr Winnick); my hon. Friend is definitely not my sister, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz)—I would have recognised that. I agree with what he said and I thank him.

I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the shadow Chancellor are trying to be helpful but there were issues that I wanted to raise on Second Reading concerning the Act of Settlement and my Bill on the removal of primogeniture, which is currently before the House and ought to be considered alongside the very sensible changes being made by the Chancellor in clause 9 of this Bill, which gives a female heir of the Duke of Cornwall the chance to get a settlement equal to a male heir. I agree with what the Chancellor and shadow Chancellor have said, but there is no opportunity to raise these issues if we simply have a debate on clause stand part instead of on Second Reading. Like the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), I should like to know whether it is your intention, Mr Deputy Speaker, to allow a clause stand part debate to proceed as if it were Second Reading, thus enabling us to raise concerns about the modernisation of the Act of Settlement, which as the hon. Gentleman has said, we have been waiting to do for two centuries.

Regulatory and Banking Reform

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about exit. One area on which we are all working, not just in the UK but elsewhere, is to ensure that, when an institution fails, the matter can be resolved and that the resolution can take place without an impact on the taxpayer. That will help with competition and to tackle the broader issues, whereby taxpayers have to stand behind banks. We need to get that right.

On competition, we need to recognise that the role of regulation in financial services is quite broad. Some of it is about promoting competition, and some of it is about consumer protection when there are asymmetries of information. In the blueprint that we have published today, we see an acknowledgement of the role that competition will play, and that is why we have given the Financial Conduct Authority a primary duty to use competition in pursuit of its regulatory objectives. That gets the balance right between the different roles that the FCA has to play.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

In three weeks’ time, 5 July marks the 20th anniversary of the closure of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. The Minister on that day 20 years ago was a young accountant working for Price Waterhouse, the much-criticised auditors of BCCI. For 20 years, the bank has been in liquidation and for 20 years we have been asking for the publication of the confidential parts of the Bingham report, which, as the Financial Secretary will know, was the basis on which we had the system of regulation that he has just changed. Is he absolutely certain that the best way of dealing with these matters is to hand them back to the Bank of England? If he is, will he please do what the previous Government failed to do and ask the Chancellor to publish the confidential parts of the Bingham report?

[Mr Hoban]

I hear the right hon. Gentleman’s request, and his right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) has made a similar request, to which he did not seem to accede when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. The new regulatory regime does learn the lessons of the past, and the supervisory style and confused mandate of the FSA mean that we need to change.

The lesson that we have learned from the financial crisis is that, importantly, the Bank of England’s expertise in market surveillance and in understanding macro-prudential trends can best work with the needs of a micro-prudential supervisor by ensuring that that micro-prudential supervisor is an independent subsidiary of the Bank. And, just so the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) does not get the wrong impression, I did not work on the audit of BCCI.

Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill [Lords]

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Monday 15th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Bill makes provision for imposing financial restrictions on, and in relation to, certain persons believed or suspected to be, or to have been, involved in terrorist activities. It amends schedule 7 to the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, and is for connected purposes.

Hon. Members will be aware that the threat to the UK from terrorist attack continues to be judged as severe, meaning that an attack is highly likely. Just a few weeks ago, intelligence agencies uncovered another plot designed to cause death and destruction to innocent people. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary revealed, those involved in that air cargo bomb plot were well connected and part of an international network of extremists.

It would seem that the terrorist threat that we face is developing. We see the continued emergence of a more diverse and devolved terrorist threat that is joined more by ideology than by hierarchy, and that is technologically very capable. Small networks, or even individuals acting alone, are able to use technology to their advantage, giving them the ability to wreak havoc worse than their size might suggest. It is clear that those who wish to do us harm operate on an increasingly global scale and are devising ever more sophisticated methods of avoiding detection. This is why we must continue to ensure that the tools we employ to combat terrorism remain effective. We must have the ability to take preventive action to disrupt suspected terrorists.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I understand that 205 accounts have been frozen under the previous legislation. Does the Minister know whether there is any evidence of a link between any of those accounts and actual terrorist activity? I am not disputing in any way what the Government are doing, and I fully support the Bill, but I would like to know whether any connection has been made between those accounts and any kind of terrorist activity.

[Mr Hoban]

In regard to the Bill, and to the legislation that it will replace, assets are frozen where there is reasonable suspicion. The Bill will change that test in order to strengthen it.

Asset freezing is a tool that we can use to take preventive action to disrupt suspected terrorists, and it is used internationally to prevent and disrupt the financing of terrorism. The impact of our ability to freeze the funds of potential perpetrators should not be underestimated. By cutting off access to finance and preventing money from reaching terrorist networks, we can stop individual acts in their early stages.

Currently, around £140,000 is frozen in the UK under our domestic terrorist asset-freezing regime. That might not seem a large amount, but hon. Members will be aware that it takes only a relatively modest amount of money to carry out a deadly attack. By way of illustration, the dreadful attacks of 7 July 2005 cost less than £10,000 to carry out, and the air cargo bomb plot is also likely to have cost a comparatively small amount.

[Keith Vaz]

No one is disputing the importance of this legislation or the legislation that it replaces, or the decision of the Supreme Court that has meant that this measure has had to be rushed through in this way. The Minister has not really answered my question, however; he has just given me some information about reasonable suspicion. Was there any connection between any of the accounts that have been frozen, for whatever reason, and any terrorist activity?

[Mr Hoban]

May I just dispute the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the Bill being rushed through? It has not been rushed through. The process, of which he might be aware, is that, following the Supreme Court judgment earlier this year, emergency legislation was taken through this House and the other place to ensure that the terrorist asset-freezing regime remained in place until the end of this year. At that point, the previous Government initiated a consultation on the way in which that legislation should be replaced. That consultation started earlier this year, and has continued. My noble Friend Lord Sassoon introduced this Bill in the other place, and further safeguards have been included in it as a consequence of the consultation process. I do not believe that anyone could say that the process has been rushed. It has taken place in the methodical and thorough manner required to balance civil liberties concerns with the importance of national security. Although I am not in a position to disclose the links between the accounts frozen and any activity, those accounts and the evidence are kept under review, and orders are lifted where it is felt appropriate.

Asset freezing is not just a domestic tool used by the UK to combat terrorist financing. We have an international obligation to freeze the assets of terrorists, and it is important to consider it in some detail. In 2001, after the 9/11 attacks, the UN Security Council unanimously passed resolution 1373, requiring states to take a range of measures to combat international terrorism and the financial flows that underpin it. The overarching objective of the resolution was to

“combat by all means…threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts”.

It was clearly intended to be preventive, and it calls on states to

“work together urgently to prevent and suppress terrorist acts, including through increased cooperation and full implementation of the relevant international conventions relating to terrorism”.

Those are broad provisions, and intentionally so. They reflect the Security Council’s real and unanimous commitment to take all necessary measures to prevent terrorism.

Although resolution 1373 is quite detailed in its obligations, the Financial Action Task Force, the international standard-setting body for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist finance, has helpfully provided further detailed guidance on the implementation of UN terrorist asset-freezing obligations. That guidance reflects the intention for the resolution to be preventive in its effect, which is an important consideration when we come to consider in more detail the appropriate legal test for freezing assets.

Particularly for the benefit of hon. Members who did not participate in our debates earlier this year, I should like to explain a little of the history behind the Bill and why we need to act now. Following the adoption of resolution 1373, the previous Government took the decision to implement UN terrorist asset-freezing obligations through secondary legislation, by Orders in Council made under the United Nations Act 1946. Following litigation brought by several applicants affected by one of those orders, which went all the way to the Supreme Court, that court ruled earlier this year that the previous Government had gone beyond the general powers conferred by section 1 of that Act in making Orders in Council to give effect to our UN terrorist asset-freezing obligations. The orders were not subject to parliamentary scrutiny, so Parliament did not have the opportunity to consider how the UK should best give effect to its obligations. The Supreme Court quashed the relevant order with immediate effect.

Many Members will remember that in response to the judgment, the previous Administration rushed through emergency legislation, with cross-party support, to maintain the asset-freezing regime and ensure that terrorist assets would not have to be unfrozen. No one in the House wanted to see the unfreezing of terrorist assets, and that was why my party and others were prepared to support the emergency legislation. At the same time, there was a strong feeling in the House that the terrorist asset-freezing regime needed to be scrutinised by Parliament in more detail at the earliest opportunity, and that there was scope to improve it by strengthening civil liberties safeguards. For that reason, Parliament inserted a sunset clause providing for the temporary legislation to expire on 31 December this year. That is why we are now legislating to ensure that the UK’s terrorist asset-freezing regime can be improved and put on a secure legislative footing in time for that deadline.

As the House will know, this Government are committed to striking the right balance between protecting public safety and protecting civil liberties. We believe that in a number of areas, it is possible to strike a better balance and strengthen civil liberties safeguards without undermining public safety. Terrorist asset freezing is one such area, and that is why the Bill is not intended simply to reintroduce the previous regime that the Supreme Court quashed. I shall explain that.

The Bill, as introduced in the other place, included several changes to strengthen the proportionality, fairness and transparency of the regime. Briefly, they included a narrowing of the prohibitions relating to third parties, so that a third party does not commit an offence if they did not know, or reasonably suspect, that they were breaching a prohibition; excluding payments of state benefits to spouses or partners of designated persons from the scope of prohibitions, even when those benefits are paid in respect of a designated person; and a new requirement that the operation of the regime be independently reviewed nine months after the Bill is passed and every 12 months thereafter.

To strengthen further the protection afforded to designated persons, the Government tabled significant safeguards before the Committee stage in the other place. Those additional safeguards reflect the civil liberties concerns that were raised in Parliament during the passage of the emergency legislation and in the public consultation conducted over the spring and summer.

First, we addressed the legal threshold that must be met before the Treasury can freeze a person’s assets. Under the current Order in Council, the Treasury may freeze a person’s assets on the basis that it reasonably suspects that they are involved in terrorism, provided that the Treasury considers that necessary to protect members of the public. Under the Bill, the Treasury can no longer rely on a threshold of reasonable suspicion if it wishes to make a designation lasting more than 30 days.

The Government consider that there is a good case for retaining a reasonable suspicion threshold for a temporary period of 30 days only. That will enable assets to be frozen when there is sufficient evidence to meet a suspicion threshold, but when, for example, investigations are ongoing, and there is therefore a reasonable prospect of subsequently meeting a higher evidential threshold. A good example of that is when assets are frozen alongside arrest while the police build the evidential case for bringing criminal charges, as happened with the freezing of assets in connection with the transatlantic plane bomb plot in 2006.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

The official Opposition’s view is the same as that underlying the Bill that is before the House. We have always held the view that there is a need to take action, as set out in the clauses in the Bill that indicate that, when there is information, the Minister can bring forward an order and designate the individual according to a standard of proof that may not be a conviction standard of proof but responds to a level of concern that leads the Minister to want to take action. We support that.

As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon, we will look at the suggestions that were raised on Friday in the final draft of the Joint Committee’s report. However, there are proposals in the report that I suspect I would not have supported as a Minister and that I will therefore not necessarily support as an Opposition spokesman. Nevertheless, we will give them due consideration; indeed, I may even table amendments that reflect the Joint Committee’s deliberations while ultimately allowing the Minister the opportunity to respond to them, so that there is a debate. I may not even necessarily force those amendments to a vote.

[Keith Vaz]

Although I obviously accept the thrust of what my right hon. Friend says, there seems to be something of a love-in going on between the two Front Benchers on this issue, and it always worries me when Front Benchers are in agreement over everything.

I am concerned about those who have had their assets frozen and who have now had their orders revoked; there are 13 people in that situation, according to the written ministerial statement. What do we say to them? They have had their bank accounts frozen and, in a sense, someone has believed that they have in some way been linked to terrorism; there is a reasonable suspicion of that. It will be pretty difficult for them now, will it not?

[Mr Hanson]

First, may I assure my right hon. Friend that there is no love-in between the Minister and myself? We have been jackets-off for the past week and a half in a Committee dealing with another Bill, and I suspect that we will be jackets-off next Monday dealing with the same Bill. However, where there is agreement on this issue, we will maintain that agreement, and I think that the Minister and I agree that the powers before us are proportionate. In the cases that my right hon. Friend mentioned, people will have an opportunity under the Bill to appeal, and there will be independent oversight. Those are important safeguards.

Ultimately, the most important liberty of all must be people’s right to live in a society free from the fear of terrorist attack and from incidents such as those that we have seen not far from the House of Commons in our capital city of London in recent years. We need to ensure that we take action, but that it is proportionate in cracking down on those who look to perpetrate acts of terrorism.

Having said that, I did not intervene on the Minister and I would still welcome some clarification. It is particularly important to know how the role of the independent reviewer of asset freezing will be constituted, and such clarification might, indeed, help my right hon. Friend. I would like to hear from the Minister about certain issues at some point—I give him due notice that these are issues for Committee. How will the independent reviewer be appointed? Will he or she be the same person as reviews terrorism legislation? Currently, that is Lord Carlile, but the appointment of David Anderson QC, was recently announced. Will this be a completely different role or a parallel role? What will the budget for the office be and how will the office work?

We need to look separately at some of the considerable powers that the Bill gives the Treasury; for example, in clause 31, which deals with appointing the reviewer, and in clause 3, on the notification of final designation. Clause 3(3)(iii) gives the Treasury powers to do things that are

“in the interests of justice”,

but that term can be defined quite widely. I will therefore be testing the Minister in Committee, not out of broad opposition to the proposals, but so that he can clarify these issues. Those who ultimately read the proposals that we make in Committee and on Second Reading will then understand the powers that we are giving the Treasury and, in particular, how the Treasury will disclose matters and use those powers. I give the Minister notice that although we are giving him a free ride today, we will still look in Committee at how powers such as those in clause 3 are intended to be used, what

“in the interests of justice”

means, what we define as being

“in the interests of national security”

and what

“for reasons connected with the prevention or detection of serious crime”

actually means. Although we support the Bill, we will continue to look at such issues.

The Minister gave us a powerful reminder of the types of terrorist attacks and actions that individuals and groups have undertaken, and will continue to undertake, as they attack not only our way of life, but innocent individuals across the United Kingdom and, indeed, abroad. The recent discovery of an explosive device on a courier aircraft that had landed at East Midlands airport en route from Cologne to Chicago powerfully brings home to us again the fact that that terrorist threat remains in the United Kingdom.

The Bill will impose severe financial restrictions on those whom Treasury officials “reasonably believe” have

“been involved in terrorist activity”.

I support that test, which will give us the opportunity to use asset freezing as a tool across the international community to prevent the financing of terrorism. We know how devastating and indiscriminate terrorist attacks on our shores and abroad can be.

It will be of interest to the House to know that the attack in London in 2005 cost less than £10,000 to carry out. As of July, as the Minister said, about £150,000 remained frozen in the UK under the regime. If freezing assets intended for terrorist purposes can prevent attacks and potentially save lives, and if blocking the flow of money and working alongside our international partners can disrupt international terrorist networks, we should, quite frankly, do those things. We should do them while cognisant of the human rights implications that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon and his Committee have raised, but do them we should.

Any measures that we take forward in the House must delicately weigh up national security and civil liberty implications. We will discuss that in Committee, but I will look at the debate in the other place and the changes made there. I recognise that those are important, but ultimately our purpose is to protect citizens in the country whom terrorists would attack.

Interestingly, in another place, Members raised concerns about how the Bill will fit into the wider counter-terrorism review, which raises further concerns that we will need to explore both this evening, including when the Minister responds, and in Committee. I confess again that I have concerns about the coalition’s position on the counter-terrorism strategy generally. Having been a terrorism Minister in the last Government, I know that things such as section 44, control orders and CCTV usage are important and help to prevent terrorist attacks. That is a debate for another day, but I note the concerns that the Bill might be subsumed by some of the outcomes of the review. I would therefore like to know either in Committee, or even this evening, whether this is stand-alone legislation or whether it will be further amended in light of any review coming out of the counter-terrorism strategy as a whole. I do not wish to waste the time of the House or the Committee discussing issues only to find that the noble Lord Macdonald throws up concerns that have to be incorporated in another Bill dealing not just with this issue but with those to which we might return, such as section 44 and control orders.

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury said in another place that

“where the review’s conclusions are relevant to asset freezing, and should those conclusions alter the balance in favour of introducing additional safeguards, we will take them into account and bring forward any amendments that may be appropriate to the Bill.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 July 2010; Vol. 720, c. 1252-1253.]

Presumably that also means that if Lord Macdonald says that they are disproportionate, proposals might be introduced watering down the Bill’s provisions. The Minister needs to reflect on that and indicate clearly in his winding-up speech whether the Bill is separate from, or part of, the review.

It would also be useful to know the time scale of the ongoing general review. Under tonight’s programme order, we will complete the Committee stage of the Bill in short order—by 25 November—and will be returning on Report shortly after that. If Lord Macdonald’s report has not been completed by then, will we go immediately to Royal Assent? I need some indication from the Minister of the time scales in order to know the product and concerns we are dealing with.

I want to raise another matter—I hope that I am being supportive—that Ministers need to reflect on. Again, it is something we will return to in Committee. There is a grey area between terrorist financing and some aspects of organised crime. I noticed that my hon. Friend the Member for—

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), who is obviously knowledgeable about the internal workings of these issues. He is also right that we need to look at the big picture more than at the immediacy of some of the things we are doing. One problem in the past was that we did not think carefully enough about counter-terrorism legislation until some great event occurred. Then there was a great hoo-hah—quite rightly—and Members in all parts of the House became concerned and wanted to pass legislation. He is right that the Bill is not being introduced with that immediacy, which means that we have an opportunity to look carefully at what is being proposed.

I have always welcomed the unity of the Front Benches on terrorism issues, although in my 23 years in this House I have found that, with one or two exceptions, whenever the word “terrorism” appears in any order or other legislation, there tends to be cross-party support. The exception was when the previous Government rather hastily marched some of us through the Division Lobby in support of 90 days’ detention. On reflection, we realised that that was not the right thing to do.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

The right hon. Gentleman will recall the unanimity of view on the Dangerous Dogs Act, but it was not very good law.

[Keith Vaz]

I think that was 1874, which was before even I entered the House, but I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

[Mr Llwyd]

No, I meant the Dangerous Dogs Act 19—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Shall I vacate my seat while you two have a chat? Please can we have no sedentary interventions?

[Keith Vaz]

I give way to the leader of the Welsh nationalists.

[Mr Llwyd]

I was referring to the latest Dangerous Dogs Act, which was passed in 1991. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that there was unanimity across the House on that legislation, but it was thoroughly bad law.

[Keith Vaz]

The point that the leader of the Welsh nationalists makes is absolutely right. Even though there is unanimity of purpose, it is important that we look carefully at the legislation and scrutinise it, for the reasons that all those who have spoken so far have set out. My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) is no longer in his place, and I am not sure where he has disappeared to. However, notwithstanding the support from the Opposition Front Bench, I am sure that when he gets to Committee and takes off his jacket—as the Minister will do too, in these dramatic confrontations that occur in the Committee corridor—they will be able to discuss the finer detail of the Bill.

We have not had a substantive debate about counter-terrorism on the Floor of the House of Commons since the new Government were formed. It is certainly the intention of the Select Committee on Home Affairs to look at counter-terrorism when Lord Macdonald has finished his review and when Charles Farr, who is conducting the review in the Home Office, completes his consideration of the Home Office issues. I see in the Chamber the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), in whose constituency I spent most of the morning. He and the House will know that those issues have to be discussed in great detail. We need to look at control orders, and see whether the legislation passed so far has been adequate to deal with, first, the terrorist threat and, secondly, the civil liberties implications, of which the hon. Member for West Suffolk rightly made mention. That is why what the leader of the Welsh nationalists said is so important. We hope that the Home Affairs Committee can look carefully at those issues, and therefore give a considered view to Parliament when Parliament chooses to discuss the matter.

The figures in the Minister’s written statement, which was helpfully released this morning, I think, applied to the amount in accounts that have been frozen—£290,000— and to the number of people who have had orders revoked. I do not know whether it is just me, but I was surprised at the small figure, given that the City of London and this country in general must have trillions of pounds in bank accounts. Bearing in mind the fact that international terrorism is a global crime—taking into account the concern that we have about our tough legislation on people seeking to come into this country and depositing money here to be used to finance terrorism—I thought that the figure given was, frankly, a bit on the low side. When the Minister—or perhaps his junior Minister—winds up, perhaps he will say whether he agrees, because £290,000 does not sound like an enormous amount to be funding international terrorist activities.

Similarly, on the 205 accounts, it is not clear whether we are talking about 205 people with 205 different accounts, or a smaller number of people with 205 accounts between them. Although we do not want to know who they are—it would be inappropriate, as we know, to discuss individual cases on the Floor of the House—it would certainly help the House to have as much information as possible. Are we talking about fewer people with many accounts, or are we talking about 205 people?

The second issue to do with the figures concerns the number of people who have had their orders revoked. I have not had the pleasure of reading the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ report into the issue, but I hope to do so as soon as possible. I do not know whether the report looked at the revocation of orders, but I am concerned about those who have had their assets seized, because somebody had reasonable suspicion that they were involved in, or were funding, some kind of terrorist activity, but who have had their cases reviewed and, as a result, had the orders revoked. What happens to those people? Do they get compensation if they had to pay their bills and continued to have living expenses, despite having their accounts suddenly frozen? Do we explain why their accounts were frozen? I am not sure, so I would be most grateful if the Minister told the House what procedure is adopted once an order has been revoked.

I welcome the fact that orders have been revoked: it shows that the system works. If no orders had been revoked, I would have been extremely worried, because people can have reasonable suspicions, but when they look at a particular case, they may come to another view. I welcome the new appeal process in the Bill—there should always be an appeal process in such circumstances—which will presumably mean that more people might challenge the system. It would be helpful to know what kind of information they would have during that process.

Those may seem to be points of detail, but they are terrifically important to anyone who is caught innocently in the system. Indeed, I would also be keen to know whether there had been any complaints by individuals about the way the system operates currently. If there have been legitimate complaints, do the Government propose to ensure that the legislation covers those complaints in some way or another? People might be pretty delighted that their accounts were suddenly frozen, but then suddenly released. However, I would imagine that if any of us in the Chamber did not have access to our bank accounts, for whatever reason, we would be pretty upset. Therefore, it is important to know whether any complaints under the current system have been addressed.

My final point concerns the Macdonald-Farr review. I know that it is not a matter for this Minister, but he will no doubt talk to the lead Minister on counter-terrorism—that is, the Home Secretary—or other Ministers. It is important that we have a timetable for concluding the review that the Government have set up. I recently wrote to the Home Secretary asking for that timetable. It is important that we know precisely at which point the internal review being conducted by Charles Farr is drawn up and when the views of Lord Macdonald come into any consideration. Do they prevail over what has happened? Those are not issues for this Minister; they are issues for the Home Office. However, in the overarching discussions that are no doubt taking place in Government, they are issues to be considered by all.

The leader of Plaid Cymru reminded us—certainly me—that Parliament legislates in haste and repents at leisure. The hon. Member for West Suffolk said that the Bill was not being rushed through, which we welcome, but a timetable in which the legislation has to return to us in seven days is quite fast. I am not sure how many sittings the Minister intends for scrutiny. It is sometimes considered that those who speak on Second Reading wish to sit in Committee, so I would like to make it clear to any Whips who might be present that I have no desire to sit in the Public Bill Committee. If we are to scrutinise the legislation carefully, however, and if it is going to be with us for some time, we should take into account the concerns of the Plaid Cymru leader and ensure that we scrutinise this Bill very carefully indeed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is not correct about that. There are cases where the Treasury designates and it is that act of designation that counts. The provisions could be changed simply—I will propose the wording later—so that the Treasury requests the courts to designate; there would be nothing amiss in so doing.

The present situation is that there is a freeze and then there is an appeal. One problem with that cycle—not to mention the problem of where the power lies—is that the onus is on the affected person to find a way to make an appeal. They will have to get legal advice first and get clearance to secure the funds in order to pay for such advice. I hope that we will have absolute clarity from the Minister on whether they will always be able to get access to the funds necessary to clear their name. They will then have to apply and have their case heard. As I will explain in more detail later, they may not even know the case against them.

That highlights the real questions over who should make these judgments. I think it should be a court that determines the freeze and that it should be done ex parte. I absolutely accept that the courts should be able to go through the process without warning the accused in advance, because if they can simply move the money or assets somewhere else, it will not work, but the courts need to be involved and the people accused must be given a chance to make their case fairly.

I would also like to deal with the issue of standards of proof. I have put the issue to both Front-Bench teams and I have asked a number of colleagues—legal and otherwise—what the standard of proof should be before we take an action like freezing someone’s assets. Should it be the criminal standard of proof or should it be the civil standard? I have been fascinated by the number of people who think that they are somewhat illiberal in believing that it should be a bit below the criminal level. I have heard that from a number of colleagues.

Should things be done separately? Should we require people to have been convicted, tried or just arrested before we apply the provisions? When I asked him earlier, the Minister referred to the problem of arresting non-UK people, and I accept his point, which was well made. I nevertheless seek an assurance that the people involved will at least have been through a process of arrest—for people in the UK, where that is appropriate—and that at least consideration will have been given to taking the person through the full legal processes of trial and conviction. Security Council resolution 1373, with which we are trying to comply, requires us to deal with those who

“commit or attempt to commit terrorist acts”.

It does not say anything about those we “suspect” of committing such acts, so the Bill goes beyond what is required by the Security Council.

I understand the argument for having a slightly lower standard for the interim powers, although I would ask why it was decided to go for 30 days and whether “reasonably suspect” is the appropriate provision. I am very concerned, however, about the idea of “reasonable belief” for a final designation. That means treating people below the civil standard, which is essentially a 50:50. We are saying that it is just as likely to be one way as the other. That is the civil test. The Government are seeking to freeze people’s assets in circumstances where they believe that it is more likely than not that those people were not involved in terrorist activities. I find that alarming. If we think people were probably not involved, we should not freeze their assets. In the Government’s defence, I have to say that the Opposition seem to think that the degree of involvement in terrorist activities could be even less before these provisions are applied, which I find significantly worse.

These are draconian powers and we should be sure, to a reasonably high standard of proof—I could even accept a balance of probabilities—that the people are likely to have been involved with terrorist offences. I am also concerned about what is meant by a “terrorist offence”. Many concerns have arisen over a number of years where actions have been described inappropriately as terrorist offences. I am sure that Members are aware of the figures relating to section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2009. According to the latest figure that I have seen, 101,248 people were stopped and searched and none was arrested for terrorism-related offences. Does that constitute involvement in terrorism? How do we define the term?

[Keith Vaz]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about the amount of money that has been seized—about £290,000, although the figure varies according to the fluctuations of currencies? According to a note attached to the Minister’s speech, the amount could actually be less than £290,000, as it depends on the value of the pound. That is approximately the cost of a one-bedroom flat in Westminster North.

[Dr Huppert]

I am not entirely sure how that is relevant to what I was saying, but I do indeed find it astonishing. I suspect that the public, if they thought about the matter, would imagine very large sums, although that might be a result of their having watched too many James Bond films. I certainly find it surprising that we are concerned with the net sum of roughly a quarter of a million pounds.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

It is a pleasure to be able to conclude today’s Second Reading debate. This is a most important Bill that covers issues of national security and civil liberties. These are significant issues that deserve full scrutiny and I would like to thank all hon. Members for their eloquent contributions.

My hon. Friends the Members for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) and for Hexham (Guy Opperman) brought experience and expertise to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) spoke in a way that I am sure his predecessor, David Howarth, would approve of. He raised a number of questions in regard to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I shall address in detail in a moment.

The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) made a memorable speech—[Laughter.] Well, at least I will remember it. He noted that he was somewhat suspicious of anything that had cross-party support from both Front Benches. I imagine that he did not experience that very often when he was a Minister. I should like to thank the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) for highlighting his concerns about knee-jerk legislation and making a similar point to that of the right hon. Member for Leicester East. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) brought to the debate the experience of his part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, which has suffered so much from terrorism over many years. He asked a number of questions that I hope to be able to respond to later.

A number of issues have been raised in the debates over the course of this year, and I am pleased to say that the Government have responded to the concerns raised in the House earlier this year and to those raised in the public consultation exercise on the previous Government’s draft legislation. We introduced legislation as soon as possible, to ensure that Parliament has sufficient time to scrutinise the legislation properly and still meet the 31 December deadline to avoid a gap in the regime and the unfreezing of assets. The Bill before the House today is a significant improvement on the current asset- freezing regime, because it strengthens civil liberties safeguards without undermining the effectiveness of the UK’s asset-freezing regime in disrupting terrorism.

Let me address in more detail the striking of the right balance between national security and liberty in the context of the Bill. I shall deal first with the national security element of that balance. Let me be clear that, while it is true that the asset-freezing regime has an impact upon human rights, it is the Government’s view that the interferences set out in the Bill are necessary in the interests of national security and public protection. We have recently been reminded of the very real threat posed by international terrorism.

To achieve our objectives, the Government must have the right tools to combat terrorism in the UK and overseas. It is not sufficient for us to be reactive, and to be able to deal with an atrocity only after it has happened. We must be able to act preventively, to disrupt terrorist plots in their planning stages. Hon. Members will acknowledge that one of the most effective ways of doing this is to limit terrorists’ access to finance. We know that terrorists need finance to carry out attacks, to maintain their infrastructure, training, equipment and recruitment, and to promote their message of hate. In order to contain the threat that these extremists pose, the Government need to be able to act quickly to freeze the funds and finances of those involved in terrorism who are considered to present a real threat to the general public. The Government believe that the UK’s asset-freezing regime is the right means to achieve that.

There is no question but that the asset-freezing regime has proved a valuable tool for disrupting and preventing terrorist financing. The £140,000 of currently frozen assets could be used to devastating effect were they to be released. The right hon. Member for Leicester East made the point that the total amount that has been frozen is perhaps surprisingly small, but it is worth remembering that disproportionate damage can be done with a small amount of money. As we have heard, the 7/7 attacks cost less than £10,000.

[Keith Vaz]

We clearly understand that it takes only a small amount of money in certain circumstances, but will the Exchequer Secretary clarify those figures for us? Is he saying that £140,000 is frozen at the moment? Does he know the total amount that has been frozen since the previous Government introduced the original legislation, or would he be able to write to me with the number or place it in the Library so that Members will all know it?

[Mr Gauke]

The current figure is £140,000, as I said. The figure that the right hon. Gentleman talks about is £290,000, which as I understand it is the amount that has been frozen in total. He asked earlier about the 205 accounts referred to in the written ministerial statement. That does not necessarily mean that 205 people are involved, and it is worth pointing out that 24 people in the UK are subject to asset freezes under the legislation that the Bill will replace.

[Keith Vaz]

I think the fault is perhaps in the drafting of the written statement. It states:

“As of 30 September 2010, a total of 205 accounts containing just under £290,000”

were frozen. It would be helpful if, perhaps through the next such statement, we could know the current figure. That is where my figure comes from.

[Mr Gauke]

The right hon. Gentleman’s comments are helpful, as always, and I am sure they have been duly noted.

It is right to point out that asset freezing is a preventive tool, and that people can be subject to a freeze only if the legal test is met—in other words, if they represent a terrorist threat and so the freeze is necessary for public protection. The Treasury must have reasonable grounds to suspect their involvement in terrorist activity. I will return to that point in greater detail when I turn to the comments of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It is also worth pointing out that 21 of the 24 persons in the UK subject to these measures have been charged with, or convicted of, terrorist offences.

Asset freezing is not just an effective domestic tool, it is necessary. The UK has an international obligation to freeze the assets of terrorists, and the Government are content that the Bill’s provisions remain fully compliant with international standards and are sufficiently robust to meet the needs of the police and security services, who are engaged in a day-to-day battle to maintain the security of the general public.

The right hon. Gentleman asked one or two questions about complaints. Any person who is not satisfied with a decision taken by the Treasury may request a review of the decision, and if after that review they are still unsatisfied, a complaint regarding the handling of the case can be made under the Treasury’s official complaints procedure. A senior official not directly connected with the case will then take the review decision. A designated person may appeal against their designation through the courts, and in the case of any other decision, such as on licensing, applications can be made to the High Court for the decision to be set aside.

The right hon. Gentleman asked what happens to people whose freezes have been revoked. As he pointed out, the revocation of a freeze does not show that the system is failing to work or that the imposition of a freeze in the first place was wrong. Circumstances can change, so it may no longer be necessary to maintain a freeze even though it was necessary when it was imposed. When a freeze is revoked, the individual concerned is notified, the revocation is brought to the attention of the financial sector and the outside world and the restrictions on their financial activity are removed.

One concern that has understandably been raised is whether the system is well targeted on terrorism. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge made that point. Terrorism, for the purposes of the Bill, is defined in clause 2(2) as involving one or more of

“the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism…conduct that facilitates the commission, preparation or instigation of such acts, or that is intended to do so”,

or conduct that supports or gives assistance to persons believed to be involved in such conduct.

To respond to the point made by the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) about organised crime, the Bill contains very specific powers designed to meet our UN obligations to freeze the assets of terrorists. They are not intended to be used against organised criminals unless they are also involved in terrorism, and the Government have other powers to deal with organised crime.

I turn to the very important issue of civil liberties, because we have to get that right and ensure that the balance is correct. As my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary set out, the Bill does not simply reintroduce the previous regime, which the Supreme Court quashed. We have introduced additional safeguards and made changes to ensure that the regime operates in a clearer and more transparent manner. Those changes reflect the civil liberties concerns that were raised in Parliament during the passage of the emergency legislation and in the public consultation exercise conducted over the spring and summer. We do not believe they will undermine the effectiveness of the regime or continued compliance with international best practice.

I shall highlight the key elements of those changes. We are introducing more targeted prohibitions, to limit the impact of asset freezing on innocent third parties. There is provision to ensure that the regime does not catch the payment of state benefits to the spouses or partners of designated persons, and so does not have the draconian impact on family life about which the Supreme Court was concerned. The establishment of an independent review function will ensure that there is proper independent scrutiny of the asset-freezing regime.

As the Financial Secretary highlighted, during the Bill’s passage in the other place the Government introduced significant further safeguards to raise the legal test for freezing assets for more than 30 days from reasonable suspicion to reasonable belief, and to strengthen judicial oversight by ensuring that there is a full merits-based review of designation decisions. Those are important new safeguards that will make the asset-freezing regime significantly fairer, more proportionate and more transparent, and I welcome the endorsement that they have received from hon. Members today. However, we have also heard in today’s debate, and read in the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, some calls for the Government to go further and introduce more civil liberties safeguards. I wish to respond to those points.

One concern that has been raised is that reasonable belief is still too low a threshold for freezing assets, and that the Government should be able to do so only on the balance of probabilities—in other words, if someone is more likely than not to be involved in terrorism. It has even been argued that asset freezes should be imposed only in cases of criminal charge or conviction. I shall reiterate why the Government do not agree with, and cannot support, those proposals.

To meet our UN obligations and protect national security, asset freezing must be preventive: that is, it must be capable of being used at an early stage to disrupt and prevent terrorist attacks. Setting the legal test higher than reasonable belief would make it more difficult to use the asset-freezing tool in a preventive manner, and therefore make it less effective because the level of evidence needed may rule out the use of asset freezing when it could be most useful.

Comprehensive Spending Review

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Thursday 28th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

I will not give way again to the hon. Gentleman; I shall press on.

Also in June, the OBR forecast total jobs in the economy over the next four years, which Opposition Members seem to have missed. It implies 1.6 million additional private sector jobs over the period. We will do all that we can to help those leaving the public sector to take advantage of those opportunities, and we must remember at all times that the gravest threat to jobs in our economy would be a failure to deal with the deficit. Deficit denial is the single biggest danger to employment in this country today.

Throughout the review, I have been clear on one thing: our decisions need to improve life chances. Fairness is not just the net sum of cash transfers. That is important, but there is more. Fairness is about opportunity and the chance for a better future, especially for the next generation. We know about the attainment gap between children from different backgrounds, which starts at an early age.

In these difficult times, perhaps no one would have noticed had we quietly turned a blind eye, but fairness demands more, so we have chosen to invest. That is why we have introduced a new pledge for 15 hours’ child care for disadvantaged two-year-olds, matching the 15-hour commitment for all three and four-year-olds that was previously introduced by this coalition Government. Cash spending on Sure Start services will be maintained, with a renewed focus on life chances. Although this has meant a greater challenge for other Departments, I am proud that the schools budget will not only match but outstrip inflation in each of the next four years. When we factor in reduced pressure from pay restraint and back-office savings, that amounts to a very significant boost to the classroom. A new £2.5 billion pupil premium will target additional resources on those with the most to gain.

We will be relentless in our focus on social mobility, and in extending the ladder of opportunity. Fairness runs through the heart of this spending review.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

We all accept that those are very difficult decisions. However, the chairman of the Police Federation has suggested that 40,000 police service jobs will be lost because of cuts to the Home Office budget. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that if that happens, crime will rise?

[Danny Alexander]

I do not accept that analysis. Of course, it will be for individual police forces in due course to make their own decisions—[Interruption]—but given the potential for police forces to become more efficient, we think that there is no reason why those savings should have any impact at all on the presence of police on the front line in communities.