Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill [HL]

Lord Sassoon Excerpts

Monday 25th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, I am prompted to rise by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. The principle to which he refers is displaced only by a conviction. Therefore, the amendment does not particularly invoke that principle. I would be interested to hear the basis on which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, thinks that a person should be charged with an offence under this provision. Of course, I understand the point made from the opposition Front Bench. It may be sufficient if there are assets in the jurisdiction, even if the person who owns or controls the assets is not himself or herself in the jurisdiction. Having listened carefully to my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd of Berwick, I am left with the question of the basis on which, or the extent to which, one must know what has happened in order to charge someone with an offence under these provisions.

[The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)]

My Lords, if noble Lords will permit me, I will speak to this entire group of amendments, although there has not been any significant discussion on some of them. It is perhaps worth summarising what these amendments would do. They would limit final designations to those charged with a terrorist offence of a description within Clause 2(2). They would require any final designation to cease if the charges are dropped or the person is acquitted and require the Treasury to apply to the court to make an interim designation.

Amendments 1 and 3 relate to the Treasury’s power to make a final designation. They require the Treasury to make final designations against only those people who have been charged with a criminal offence falling within the description of terrorist activity in Clause 2(2) for the purposes of the Bill.

Amendments 4, 5 and 6 require a final designation automatically to expire when a person charged is acquitted or charges are dropped before the ordinary one-year expiry. This goes to the heart of what this regime is intended to be about. Although I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, in recognising the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and the great wisdom he brings to this, I think he does not go to the complete heart of the rationale of UNSCR 1373, which is indeed preventive. It requires states to take steps to prevent terrorist acts. I should quote further from the resolution. Its paragraph 1(c) states that one of the means of achieving this requires states to:

“Freeze without delay funds and other financial assets or economic resources of persons who commit, or attempt to commit, terrorist acts or participate in or facilitate the commission of terrorist acts”.

The rationale of paragraph 1(c) is to prevent funds, financial assets and other economic resources being used or diverted for terrorist purposes, and the Government absolutely believe that it would not accord with the preventive rationale of the UN resolution if a final designation could be made only in respect of those charged or convicted of terrorism-related offences.

If that were the threshold, the Treasury would not be able to freeze the assets of those in respect of whom there was evidence that was insufficient to bring such a charge, but sufficient to give rise to a reasonable belief on the Treasury’s part that the person represented a terrorist risk—for example, where an interim designation has been made in respect of a person on the basis of a reasonable suspicion and insufficient evidence has come to light during the 30-day period of that interim freeze that would allow charges to be brought, but the Treasury has nevertheless come to a reasonable belief that the person is or has been involved in terrorism and considers it necessary for public protection that the final designation be made. If the Treasury were not able to make a final designation in those circumstances, that would give rise to a risk of terrorism that the requirements of the UN resolution are meant to prevent.

I remind the House that in making these designations, it is necessary that the dual test is met. The other half of the test, which has not been mentioned this afternoon, is a public protection leg. It is the Government’s continued firm belief that a reasonable belief threshold for a final designation would allow the Government to implement effectively the requirements of the resolution.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

Does the noble Lord accept that reasonable belief goes beyond what Resolution 1373 requires? That is the critical question. It is also the question, which, as I have explained, has been decided by the Supreme Court.

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, the interpretation of UNSCR 1373 can be construed partly on a recommendation of the resolution itself and partly on the interpretation which the Financial Action Task Force has made. It is clear from its guidance that asset freezes should not be limited only to cases where people have been charged or convicted. If we were to accept this amendment, which the Government do not intend to do, it would certainly put the UK outside what is considered by all leading countries through the FATF guidance to be best practice in implementing Resolution 1373. What we are proposing is consistent with the approach taken by other authorities, such as in Canada and New Zealand, of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, approved in the case of Ahmed.

I agree with the interpretation of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, of the situation. Asset freezing is implemented against individuals and groups in the UK and overseas. At the moment, 22 entities and 14 individuals overseas are the subject of asset freezing. Nothing in Clause 1 limits this. Asset freezing certainly is not limited to people in the UK. People anywhere in the world can be designated, but the prohibitions apply only within UK jurisdictions; that is, to assets that are either held in the UK or by UK persons such as banks overseas. I hope that that clarifies the question of territorial scope.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

Is the Minister saying, in effect, that Clause 1 has extra-territorial effect? If so, what is his authority for saying that in the light of the fact that the Bill makes specific provision for extra-territorial effect for offences under Clause 11 but no such provision in relation to Clause 1?

[Lord Sassoon]

Under Clause 1, people anywhere in the world can be designated. To repeat myself again, the prohibitions, on the other hand, apply only within UK jurisdictions; that is, to assets either held in the UK or held by UK persons such as banks overseas. That is about as clear as I can be on the Government’s understanding of the scope of Clause 1. The people overseas who are subject to asset freezes are operating in environments where it is not possible to charge or to convict them clearly of terrorist offences, but where it is necessary in order to disrupt their actual or potential—

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

Perhaps I may tempt the Minister into a more direct answer to the question posed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. Surely what he is saying amounts to no; it does not have extra-territorial effect. A clear answer to that effect might be helpful for future purposes.

[Lord Sassoon]

Not being a lawyer, I was trying to give a clear statement of what effect Clause 1 has in relation to the underlying reality of where it bites. As to whether this does or does not mean that it has extra-territorial effect, I will leave that to lawyers to sort out. However, I am now given advice which says that Clause 33 sets out the extra-territorial application of the offences. Perhaps that will help on this point.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

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]

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.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

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]

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]

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

[Lord Sassoon]

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.

[Noble Lords]

Order.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

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

[Lord Sassoon]

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]

Osama bin Laden—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My Lords, on this important amendment, we have heard from the Minister that because he is a layman, as I am, he is not able to answer the questions raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, in a manner that satisfies those of us who are laymen and thus enables us to vote intelligently if a vote is called.

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham. I hope that the majority of us are clear about the intended scope of Clause 1, so I shall move on to deal with some of the other aspects. However, it is quite clear that the scope of Clause 1 is as intended and required by our obligations under UN Resolution 1373, which is the relevant resolution.

It is worth noting that while the majority of asset-freezing cases in the UK are against those who are charged or convicted of terrorist offences, at the moment there are six cases where it has been necessary, in order to protect the public from terrorism, to act upon the intelligence picture which, for reasons of national security or admissibility of evidence, cannot be used as the basis for criminal charges. However, that does not, of course, mean that those people do not continue to pose a serious risk to national security. Therefore, to limit final designations only to those subject to a criminal charge would exclude such groups and individuals as I have described. This would fatally undermine the preventive and disruptive nature of the asset-freezing regime as well as impact significantly on its operational effectiveness.

Nevertheless, the Government recognise that the Bill as it was introduced raised civil liberties concerns, and it was to address those that we amended the Bill so that a higher final designation threshold of reasonable belief, rather than the previous reasonable suspicion threshold, is being introduced. However, again I stress that there is a twin test, as the test of necessity for public protection also needs to be met. I do not think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, drew attention to that.

The noble and learned Lord referred to a final order as giving an indefinite freeze. However, it is important to recognise that freezing orders have to be relooked at whenever the evidence changes or after 12 months. While “final order” is the term in the Bill, we should remember that a final order or a final designation will expire after 12 months unless it is renewed. We have also provided that the legal challenge to any designation should be by way of appeal. The Government continue to believe that the Bill strikes the right balance between safeguarding a person’s rights and protecting the public.

Amendments 9 and 11 require the Treasury to apply to the court to make an interim designation.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

I have not addressed those amendments yet. I believe they have been degrouped and appear in the next group. I specifically asked before I addressed the House that those amendments, which relate to an entirely separate subject matter—namely, the interim order, not the final order—should be degrouped. If the Minister did not hear that, he can answer what I have to say in due course.

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, the last grouping I have seen from the Printed Paper Office suggested that everything was grouped together. Perhaps I should break off here and ask the noble and learned Lord whether he is prepared to withdraw Amendment 1 and not to move Amendments 3 to 6.

[Lord Skelmersdale]

My Lords, it would make life a lot clearer for me if the Minister could say whether anything in Resolution 1373 prohibits a state that has signed up to it from producing legislation on the same subject that is more severe than the resolution suggests.

[Lord Sassoon]

I am not aware of anything in the resolution that prevents legislation going further. The Bill does what is required to properly implement Resolution 1373 but, if it did go further, that would not be precluded by the terms of the resolution.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, the Minister has not fully dealt with the point that what is now proposed goes well beyond what is required by Resolution 1373. He argued that that resolution was intended to be preventive and that what is now proposed is preventive. The resolution states, in paragraph 1(a), that it is intended to be preventive, but it then goes on to say how it is to be preventive by requiring all member countries affected by the resolution to pass legislation to freeze the assets of those who have been charged or convicted of a terrorist offence. That is clear from the language of the resolution. Simply to say that the resolution is intended to be preventive and that the Bill is preventive is not an answer to that point.

The only real answer that has been given was that given by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, when he repeated what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, in Committee. In particular, he said:

“I also asked how many persons outwith the UK have been subject to designation for asset freezing; the answer is 36, of which 22 are entities and 14 are individuals”.—[Official Report, 6/10/10; col. 150.]

How can that be so under the terrorist orders unless they were intended to be extra-territorial?

That brings us back to the question whether Clause 1 is extra-territorial. The fact that something has happened is by no means proof that it was justified, as indeed is the case with the whole history of this part of the law, which has had to be corrected by the Supreme Court in its most recent decision. Those figures do not convince me at all. We return to the question whether Clause 1 on this particular point is intended to be extra-territorial. It is clear to my mind that it is not, for the reasons that I have already given—namely, that other provisions in this Bill are said to be extra-territorial and this is not included among those provisions. That merely confirms the ordinary rule that we apply all the time that legislation is not extra-territorial unless it is stated to be so.

There is a further question relating to the figures given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness. If those persons were outside the jurisdiction, how were they notified? Under Clause 3, it is the obligation of the Treasury to notify a person immediately when the final order or an interim order is made. How can we be sure that that is being done when the person is outside the jurisdiction, wherever he may be? The argument that my amendment would in some way cut down a valuable power that the Treasury now has and would not have if my amendment were passed is simply not, with respect, borne out. I am not willing to withdraw the amendment and will take the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sassoon]

2: Clause 2, page 2, line 14, leave out ““terrorist activity” means” and insert “involvement in terrorist activity is”

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, the Government’s intention behind this amendment is to clarify that the words “involved in” in the legal tests for interim and final designations do not mean something additional to the activities and conduct referred to in the definition of “terrorist activity”. In Committee, my noble friend Lady Hamwee indicated her concern that use of the term “involved in” could capture people whose conduct did not fall strictly within Clause 2(2) but who were simply associates of people whose conduct did fall within that clause or who were merely innocent bystanders. This was not the Government’s intention, nor do we think that it is the effect. However, by tabling this amendment to make it clear that “involvement in terrorist activity” means no more than the activities and conduct described in Clause 2(2), I hope to ensure that there can be no doubt or further confusion. I thank my noble friend for her intervention in Committee and hope that she and other noble Lords will be minded to support our amendment. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for this amendment. The Bill creates a number of offences, so I felt that it was important to be crystal clear about the provisions. In my view, the amendment achieves that. I thank my noble friend.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sassoon]

7: Clause 4, page 3, line 17, leave out “such steps as they consider appropriate” and insert “reasonable steps”

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, these amendments relate to the requirement on the Treasury, where an interim or final designation expires or is varied or revoked, to take such steps as it considers appropriate to bring that fact to the attention of those informed of the interim or final designation.

When the Bill was being discussed before the Committee of the whole House, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, expressed concern that the wording of what are now Clauses 8(2)(b) and 9(2)(b), which make provision for the duration, variation and revocation of interim designations, did not hold the Treasury to a sufficiently high standard, as it was open to it to consider, in its own subjective determination, the steps to be taken to inform those informed of an interim designation of the expiry, variation or revocation of the interim designation.

We agree that it is important that persons informed of an interim designation are also informed of an expiration, variation or revocation of that designation and, on reflection, we believe that it is appropriate to make express provision in the Bill for the Treasury to be required to take reasonable steps to notify such persons. Furthermore, the same standard should be applied to the steps that the Treasury must take to inform persons of the expiry, variation or revocation of a final designation. Therefore, these amendments, which I hope address the noble Lord’s concerns, amend not only Clause 8(2)(b) and Clause 9(2)(b), but Clause 4(5)(b) and Clause 5(2)(b), which make provision for the duration, variation and revocation of final designations. The amendments have the same effect on each of the clauses, in that they remove the Treasury’s discretion to determine subjectively the steps that it considers appropriate and replace it with an obligation to take steps that, on an objective assessment, would be considered reasonable in the circumstances. I therefore beg to move.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, these amendments meet the concerns that I expressed in Committee. I am grateful to the Minister for listening and acting.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sassoon]

8: Clause 5, page 3, line 24, leave out “such steps as they consider appropriate” and insert “reasonable steps”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, Amendments 9 and 11 require the Treasury to apply to the court to make an interim designation. As I set out in Committee, the Government continue to believe that Ministers are best placed to take decisions to impose asset freezes, but it is absolutely right that these decisions should be subject to intense scrutiny by the courts in cases where a person wishes to challenge the asset freeze.

I believe that there are three compelling reasons why decisions to impose asset freezes should be taken by the Executive. First, they are preventive, not punitive, measures taken on the basis of operational advice to protect national security. It is accepted practice for such decisions to be taken by Ministers, who take decisions to impose proscriptions, deprivations of citizenship and exclusions. Secondly, Ministers are then accountable for these decisions to Parliament and the courts. This clear accountability and their broad view of the threat posed mean that Ministers are best placed to weigh the protection of national security with the interests of the designated person. Thirdly, there are strong international comparisons for this practice. The US, Australia, Canada and New Zealand all entrust asset-freezing decisions to the Executive, whereas the noble and learned Lord’s amendment would introduce mandatory court involvement in the making of interim asset-freezing decisions.

With permission, I should like to set out why the Government do not believe, as a matter of principle, that any asset-freezing decisions need to be approved by the courts. I accept, for example, that control orders work differently and are approved in this way, but the Government do not believe that the courts should have the same role in asset freezing, because the circumstances are clearly different. Asset freezes interfere with property rights but they do not impact on human rights to the same extent as control orders, which can impose restrictions on movement, association and communication. Furthermore, in contrast to control orders, asset freezing is not primarily used against people in the UK who cannot be prosecuted or deported. Indeed, as we have already discussed, only about 10 per cent of asset-freezing cases involve people who are in the UK or hold funds here and who have not been prosecuted for a terrorist offence. In cases where people are prosecuted for terrorist offences, evidence against them will be brought before a court.

In the case of terrorist groups or individuals overseas, the asset freeze has a less direct impact because it applies only within UK jurisdiction. Overseas terrorist groups and individuals have not challenged their asset freezes in the UK courts and we do not believe that mandatory court decision-making or approval would add any real value in these cases. Indeed, it may even provide groups such as Hamas with a public platform on which to challenge the UK’s operational and foreign policy decisions.

We therefore believe that the right way to recognise the need for proper judicial scrutiny over asset freezing is not to introduce mandatory court involvement but, rather, to make it clear that there is robust court scrutiny of cases where individuals or entities wish to challenge their freezes. The Government therefore brought forward amendments to the Bill to specify that challenges to designations should be on the basis of an appeal, rather than judicial review. Although I realise that judicial involvement is a principle on which certain noble Lords will have strong views—one certainly—I hope that they will be able to accept that the right way forward is to maintain the current drafting of the Bill and I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, whether he is prepared to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

My Lords, perhaps I may briefly echo my support for the noble and learned Lord’s amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Given that the noble Lord has already expressed some approval for the co-operation of the Opposition on crucial aspects of the Bill, I think that he should answer our anxieties in that respect.

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, I will first address Amendments 12 to 14, which concern making a subsequent interim designation of someone who has already been subject to an interim designation. A common theme of the amendments is the information which can be used to make a further interim designation against the same person. These amendments clarify that the Government can make a further interim designation against the same person only on the basis of significant, not incidental, new information. The Government agree that any new information would need to be significant in order for the Treasury to make another interim designation. Our amendment is tabled to make it clear that a second interim designation cannot be made on exactly the same or substantially the same evidence.

The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, prevents the Treasury making more than one interim designation of the same person in relation to substantially the same evidence, but not exactly the same evidence. I am grateful to the noble Lord for what I took to be the likelihood of him formally withdrawing his amendment—he is nodding. He also said that he will support the government amendment dealing with that point, and I am grateful for that.

The amendment tabled by my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lady Falkner of Margravine mirrors the government amendment but, in addition, prohibits the Government making a further interim designation on the same person within a period of six months. I understand that the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that interim designations are not abused effectively to subject someone to a continuous interim designation lasting more than 30 days. In practice, it is extremely unlikely that the Government would be able to make the same person subject to a second interim designation within six months without a final designation being made. This would arise only where we are unable to make a final designation but have become aware of substantial new information showing that a further interim freeze is necessary for public protection. Such a situation would be extremely unusual. Ordinarily, we would expect that significant new information would support a reasonable belief threshold, but it is nevertheless possible. Any second interim designation must, of course, be necessary for public protection as well as not being based on the same information or, as we propose, substantially the same information. We believe that these are the right safeguards and that an arbitrary period during which the second interim designation cannot be imposed is unnecessary. We would not want to deny ourselves the ability to make a further interim designation in these circumstances. If we were so denied, it would leave the public exposed to an unacceptable terrorist threat. We therefore cannot accept this amendment, and I hope that my noble friends will not move it but will support the government amendment.

Before speaking to the government amendment, I will discuss the other amendments in this group. Amendment 10 limits the circumstances where interim freezes can be imposed to when the Treasury considers that there is an urgent need to act before proper consideration can be given to whether the reasonable belief threshold for a final designation can be met. We share the view that interim designations should be made only where necessary. Where the Government have sufficient evidence available at the outset to meet the reasonable belief test, the Government will make a final designation, not an interim one. This reflects that the fact that where we can do so, it is clearly in the Government’s interest to make a final designation rather an interim designation because, first, a final designation lasts for 12 months compared with 30 days for an interim designation and, secondly, because it is not in the Government’s interest to suggest to the designated person and to the outside world that we have only reasonable suspicion of a person’s involvement in terrorism where we in fact have reasonable belief. Therefore, interim designations will be made only in cases where the Government at the time of making the decision have sufficient evidence to meet a reasonable suspicion test but not a reasonable belief test.

The amendment proposes that as an additional safeguard interim designations should be made only where there is an urgent need to act before the Government have considered whether there is sufficient evidence to make a final designation. Let me stress that there is already an important safeguard in place. Interim designations and final designations can be made only where necessary for public protection. The question raised by this amendment is what additional purpose is achieved by requiring not only that interim freezes must be necessary for public protection but that there must also be an urgent need to act. If an urgent need to act is the same as being necessary for public protection, there is no need to add it. If, however, an urgent need to act is something additional to “necessary for public protection”, what situations does it cover that the phrase necessary for public protection does not?

In our view, the Government must be free to impose interim freezes in cases where we have sufficient evidence to meet the reasonable suspicion test and where we consider that it is necessary for public protection. To accept a situation where the Government consider that an interim freeze was necessary for public protection but were unable to act would negate the purpose of making provision in the legislation for interim freezes and would increase the risk to the public from terrorism. For this reason, the Government cannot support the amendment and I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, has not spoken to Amendment 15, so I propose to move straight to Amendment 17. This amendment seeks to clarify that where an interim designation expires, whether after 30 days or on the making of a final designation, this does not prohibit the continued investigation of that person by the relevant authorities. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, for reminding us of the underlying purpose of all this activity against terrorism of which this Bill forms a part. The Government must be enabled to deploy all reasonable legislative and other appropriate powers to prevent terrorism. Therefore, it is good to be reminded of that at this point.

However, asset freezes are separate and completely distinct from investigative operations. While investigations may be relevant to the evidential base for making an interim designation, they are not directly linked. Neither the existence nor the expiry of an interim designation prohibits the relevant authorities from pursuing or continuing investigations they determine to be necessary. For that reason, we do not believe that it is necessary to amend the legislation and therefore hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, in relation to Amendment 10, the Minister emphasises that an interim designation order may be made only where it is necessary for purposes connected with protecting members of the public. Of course, he is correct. The difficulty with that argument is that the same criterion appears in precisely the same form in Clause 6(1), which is concerned with interim designation orders, and in Clause 2(1), which is concerned with final designation orders. Indeed, the criteria in the Bill for making an interim designation order are exactly the same as the criteria for making a final designation order, save that the final designation order may be made only where there is reasonable belief and the interim designation order may be made where there is reasonable suspicion.

My point is that there needs to be in the Bill something that identifies the circumstances in which it may be appropriate for the Treasury to take this, I hope, exceptional step of making an interim designation order even though it only has reasonable suspicion. The Minister, with great respect, has not answered my point that it can surely only be where there are circumstances of urgency and when the Treasury has not had time to deliberate and decide whether there is reasonable belief that it could be appropriate to make an interim designation order.

I am not going to pursue this matter today, but I ask the Minister and those who assist him to read the report of this debate before the next stage just to see whether he may be persuaded that there is something in what I say. He has himself brought forward, helpfully, a number of amendments to clarify the Bill in order to remove potential ambiguities, and I suggest that this is another. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sassoon]

14: Clause 6, page 4, line 2, after “same” insert “, or substantially the same,”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sassoon]

16: Clause 8, page 4, line 31, leave out “such steps as they consider appropriate” and insert “reasonable steps”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sassoon]

18: Clause 9, page 5, line 3, leave out “such steps as they consider appropriate” and insert “reasonable steps”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, it has been an interesting discussion. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for recognising that the Government have put in this independent review process. We have modelled the provisions for the independent reviewer on those in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, which we believe provide an effective model for the statutory, independent asset-freezing reviewer. The tributes that have been paid to the work that my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew has done, and to which I add my own, are the strongest possible endorsement of the framework we have used and on which we have modelled the provisions in the Bill.

Amendment 23A requires the independent reviewer to be approved by Parliament. We have heard very clearly from my noble friend Lord Carlile that independence is not to do with the detail of the appointment process, but the state of mind and the way in which the reviewer goes about his or her business. Of course, the independence of the reviewer is absolutely essential as part of the safeguards and will be a principal objective of the appointment that is made. But that does not mean that we believe it is necessary for Parliament to approve the independent reviewer. That would be a significant departure from standard practice in these matters. The appointment of a reviewer by government reflects a longstanding principle of ministerial responsibility about appointments. It is something for which Ministers are directly accountable to Parliament and to the public. Parliament will of course be able to scrutinise the work of the reviewer and hold him or her to account through existing mechanisms; for example, through parliamentary committee scrutiny.

Amendment 23B requires the reviewer to have a secretariat that is independent from government to assist him in the task. For reasons, including those given by my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew, we do not consider this to be a necessary provision. The independent reviewer will be provided with a secretariat and administrative support in this case, as necessary, by the Treasury. As my noble friend has explained, in practice these matters are not easy. He has set out a model that suited his way of working. It combines, under exactly the same provisions as we are proposing in this legislation, his operating partly in his own offices and partly, for matters of security and confidentiality, within, in his case, the Home Office. That does not appear to have impacted adversely in any way on his ability to carry out the role. Indeed, he has explained why in aspects of it it has been necessary to have the provision of a secretariat of civil servants, whose work he has warmly commended. We do not see why this should be any different for the independent reviewer of the asset-freezing regime.

To make the obvious point, creating a new and independent secretariat would mean a significant and ongoing cost. It is important, especially at the present time and in the present financial climate, that the best value for money is achieved, consistent with all the other objectives that we need to meet. We believe that the Treasury can provide the necessary secretariat without affecting the independence of the review or creating further significant costs.

Amendments 23C, 23D and 23E would replace the independent reviewer’s obligation to report to the Treasury with an obligation to report to Parliament. The annual reports and other ad hoc reports from my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew have always been provided, as he has eloquently explained, in the first instance to the Home Office to check factual accuracy, and to check that they do not inadvertently include any classified material and cannot be published. Similarly, asset freezing also deals with highly sensitive and classified material. We therefore believe that a similar process is appropriate.

Given that the independent reviewer will have access to all relevant papers and evidence, including highly classified intelligence reports, and on occasion material that is being considered as part of a separate criminal prosecution, it is only sensible to ensure that published reports do not include classified or sub judice material. Parliament could certainly not undertake such a check. But I can assure noble Lords that the Government will not seek to influence in any way the outcome of these reports. The reports will be provided to Parliament as quickly as possible and will be made available to the public.

Finally, Amendment 23F states that the appointment of the independent reviewer will be for five years and that it will not be renewable. We do not believe that it is necessary to have a statutory limit on the length of time that a reviewer should remain in post. There may be valid reasons why a reviewer should leave at an earlier stage. Equally, there also may be valid reasons why a reviewer should stay in post for longer, such as the expertise that a reviewer builds up over time of the legislation that is being reviewed, which may be invaluable to the review process.

The Government consider it essential that the report is impartial and transparent. As I said in Committee, the independent reviewer will be free to review any aspect of the asset-freezing regime. I would therefore hope that the noble Lord will be prepared not to press his amendments.

[Lord Judd]

I thank the noble Lord for that full reply and appreciate the tone in which it was given. I also thank everyone who participated in this debate and, if I may, I have a special word for the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who supported the amendment. I say that because it is fascinating to watch even one of my oldest friends—we were at the same school—grappling with the realities of his intellectual and legal convictions, and the cause of coalition politics. I understand his predicament and think that he spoke as positively as he could. Obviously I am glad that my noble friend Lord Davies commended the amendment. It is always nice to feel that one’s Front Bench is behind an amendment of this kind.

I have also a warm word of thanks for the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for sharing so much of his experience and insight. We are fortunate to have someone of his calibre doing the job. But that is the point: he emphasised that it is the rugged independence of the reviewer that matters. We are making provision in this legislation for a future in which we do not know who the reviewers will be. They may not all be as robust and at times combative as the noble Lord has proved himself to be. The advantage of what we are proposing is that there will be a system that gives resources to and backs the reviewer in order to enable him or her to play the part as fully as they should.

The noble Lord and others spoke about costs, and of course one recognises that there may be costs involved. We are talking about justice in the face of the most terrible and sinister provocation, and of preserving the essence of what makes our system of justice, of governance and of democracy worth defending. If we really believe in these things, there will be a price. But we cannot simply trim still further because by doing so we give a victory to the extremists. What I have always been determined to see in our approach to these matters is that we do not inadvertently give the extremists a victory—a score. That is why it is so important that we demonstrate to the world and to others that we are proud of our system of justice and our freedoms. We know that in the context of terrorism it is necessary to introduce special measures, but in doing so, we must be determined to ensure that all can see that we will keep the diminution of our systems of justice as we understand them to an absolute minimum, and that what is being done can be justified. That is crucial and therefore the importance of the independence of the reviewer cannot be overstated. It is vital. In that sense, what the amendment proposes is a system that will enhance and demonstrate that independence.

This is a vital issue. I do not want to see the processes of rationalisation beginning to erode it all over again. That is how we slip and how, inadvertently and step by step, incrementally we give the terrorists and the extremists a victory. By doing so, the society we will end up with will not be the society we are trying to protect. From that standpoint, and because it is such an important issue of principle, I wish to test the view of the House.