Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill [HL] Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: HM Treasury

Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts
Monday 25th October 2010

(14 years ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Stamford Portrait Lord Davies of Stamford
- Hansard - -

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. He may not be a lawyer, but he is a Minister. He has come before this House to present a Government Bill and therefore must be deemed to understand what the purposes of the Government were when they drafted and brought forward this legislation. I have listened with great interest to the debate with no intention of taking part, but it is clear to me that the Minister is not willing to tell the House whether Clause 1 has extra-territorial effect. The question should be capable of a simple yes or no answer. The Government must know where they are on that whole idea before they come before the House with a Bill.

Lord Sassoon Portrait Lord Sassoon
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I am trying to get to the substance of what we are seeking to achieve here, which is that if the people are abroad—that is, extra-territorial—but their assets are here, those assets can be made subject to an asset-freezing order. Indeed, if the people or the entities are UK persons, the asset freeze can also bite on them. I hope that that clarifies what we are trying to achieve.

--- Later in debate ---
Lord Davies of Stamford Portrait Lord Davies of Stamford
- Hansard - -

We all know what “territorial” means. It means persons who are in this country or visiting this country, or corporate persons such as banks that are resident in this country but have assets abroad. That is territorial jurisdiction. What we want to know is whether Clause 1 has extra-territorial jurisdiction attached to it. In other words, is the power capable of being exercised in relation to persons and assets that are not connected with the United Kingdom?

Lord Sassoon Portrait Lord Sassoon
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, let me try to say it again. Clause 1 bites on assets that are here—that is, territorial assets—but also enables the Government to freeze the assets of people who are not here, which would be extra-territorial.

Lord Davies of Stamford Portrait Lord Davies of Stamford
- Hansard - -

So, to be clear, the clause can bite on persons or assets that are not connected with the United Kingdom.

Lord Sassoon Portrait Lord Sassoon
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

No, my Lords, that is not strictly what I said. Clause 1 can bite on assets that are here that might be under the control of people who are not in the UK. Equally, it may bite on people who are within the jurisdiction of the UK on assets that they might hold elsewhere. I am sorry if that is not clear.

None Portrait Noble Lords
- Hansard -

Order.

Lord Davies of Stamford Portrait Lord Davies of Stamford
- Hansard - -

Does Clause 1 have extra-territorial jurisdiction encapsulated within it, or does it not have extra-territorial jurisdiction encapsulated within it?

Lord Sassoon Portrait Lord Sassoon
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am trying to reduce this to what Clause 1 actually does. I do not believe that saying whether it is extra-territorial will clarify the point at all. What I am trying to do is get to the substance of what the clause is intended to achieve. I do not know whether it is being suggested that we should not, for example, be able to freeze the assets of the likes of Osama bin Laden, if he had assets in this country, just because he does not happen to be here. Is that what is being suggested we should be prevented from doing?

Lord Davies of Stamford Portrait Lord Davies of Stamford
- Hansard - -

Osama bin Laden—

None Portrait Noble Lords
- Hansard -

Order!