| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Elton: I do not wish to be a bore on this subject, but I think that I am likely to become so. Can we establish at the beginning that this is emergency legislation directed at an emergency? When the Minister—or my noble friend Lord Renton—starts saying that it would be very useful and desirable to prevent other things happening which are not the product of the emergency, it seems to me that the parliamentary process that we are now using is not appropriate. I am merely picking up on what my noble friend Lord Onslow said a moment ago. The House generally feels that emergency legislation must restrict itself to dealing with the events of the emergency.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not use the phrase Xvery useful" but I do not dissent broadly from what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said. If we included the word Xterrorism", we would, in effect, restrict quick and urgent action that was necessary to prevent certain things that cannot be shown at an early stage of an investigation to be terrorism. That will be true for a number of aspects of Parts 2 and 3 of the Bill. We shall resist moves to restrict the powers given under the Bill on, for example, disclosure of information for criminal investigations and proceedings, which is wider than the existing provisions because at the time when it is necessary to allow such disclosure, it will not be possible to know whether such disclosure would be beneficial in dealing with terrorist threats. That is the problem throughout these parts of the Bill.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: The noble Lord has made it worse. He has gone on a trawling expedition and we do not like such expeditions. Everybody accepts—some more readily than others—that there may be a need for emergency legislation, but to make it cover every action in case it leads to terrorism, brothel keeping, or whatever, is too wide. We must restrain the Government's urge to tack things on to Bills just because it would be useful or nice or because it makes our lives easier. We are dealing with terrorism, not brothel keeping.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord replies, I hope that it may be helpful if I point out to my noble friend Lord Onslow that not all emergencies involve terrorism.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not use the words—useful, nice or convenient—that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, seems to be attributing to me. It
serves me right for going on to mention Part 3 of the Bill. He is tempted to a view on Part 3 that is completely wrong on the idea that one can trawl for information. However, it would be inappropriate for me to answer that point now, so I shall restrict myself to the amendments that we are discussing.Amendment No. 37 would restrict the use of Clause 4 in a way that could be damaging to terrorist investigations. Amendments Nos. 38, 39 and 40 go in the other direction. I have already said that the measure will ensure that the powers that were originally intended for use in war time are broad enough to cover the threat of terrorist attacks. To achieve that, we need a broad and flexible power to cover a range of different circumstances. We appreciate that these are serious measures for use only in emergencies and in defence of national security. I am making that point mainly to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow.
We do not think it appropriate, as Amendment No. 38 would provide, to freeze assets unilaterally in response to actions against any state other than the United Kingdom.
Lord Campbell-Savours: I wonder whether my noble friend can help me. On looking through the Bill, I can find no reference to timing. What would happen if the Treasury made a freezing order at the beginning of a parliamentary Recess? What will be the position if the matter has to be approved under affirmative resolution of Parliament?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: An order of that kind comes into effect immediately on being made and has to be confirmed within 28 days of parliamentary working time. Therefore, it can come into effect even during a Recess, but will fall unless it has been confirmed by affirmative resolution of both Houses within 28 days. It comes into effect immediately, which I think was the point being made.
Lord Campbell-Savours: It would take some time before it secured parliamentary approval. There would be a substantial delay in the Summer Recess, for example.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No. It would be in force, which is the important point. I think that everyone agrees that that is necessary.
I return to the point about Amendment No. 38 and states other than the United Kingdom. In those circumstances, we believe that we should implement financial sanctions if they have been agreed, for example, by the United Nations or the European Union, rather than seeking unilateral action. We are looking to limit the scope of the Bill as compared with Amendment No. 38.
Lord Elton: I am most grateful for that emollient phrase. May I ask the noble Lord while he is on
Amendment No. 38 how the Bill, unamended, will affect the economies of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It depends whether or not they are in the United Kingdom. I do not know the answer, but I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Elton: They are not, but they are very much dependent upon us.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Then the Bill does not cover them. There may be cases when we wish to freeze funds on behalf of other governments. An Order in Council is currently going through Parliament that will allow the enforcement in the United Kingdom of external forfeiture and restraint orders made in certain designated countries that will include all European Union and G7 states.
I turn to Amendment No. 40, which would change Xlife" to Xpersons". We would not wish to exercise those powers in response to less serious actions against United Kingdom nationals, such as petty theft or minor cases of assault. It would be disproportionate to freeze assets against threats to the persons of UK citizens. We believe that the current wording of Xlife" is appropriate to the gravity of the powers. I emphasise that the use of freezing orders must be consonant with our obligations under ECHR, Community and international law. The qualification that only unlawful or intentional actions against the UK's economic interest is unnecessary. There are extensive provisions to test that there are reasonable grounds for freezing orders through parliamentary scrutiny and appeal to an independent adjudicator through judicial review.
The clause has been approached from both sides. I adhere to the view that the balance that we have struck in the wording is the correct one.
Viscount Goschen: Before the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, speaks again to his amendment, I should like to ask the Minister a question. He objected to the use of the term Xinvolving terrorism". I agree with my noble friend Lord Onslow and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that the Bill should be restricted to terrorism. I see no reference to national security. Clause 4(2)(b) refers to,
- Xaction constituting a threat to the life or property of one or more nationals",
Does the noble Lord object to tightening up that subsection with reference being made to national security, including terrorism, or does he feel that the drafting is perfect?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The drafting is more helpful than referring simply to national security. We have spelt out what national security means, which is helpful.
While I am on my feet, I shall deal with two points that were raised in the debate and which I have not yet answered. The first referred to the Channel Islands and
the Isle of Man. They are not covered in the Bill, but we are asking their governments to make their own legislation.The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about dictators. We all sympathise with the emotion behind his remarks, but the Bill is not for dealing with stolen assets or corruption funds; it is about national security. The correct vehicle for what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to is the Proceeds of Crime Bill, which includes provisions to freeze funds at the start of a police investigation. I hope that when we come to that Bill, he will raise those points in the House.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I was pleased to hear the Minister refer to judicial review. I sought confirmation in the debate yesterday but the Attorney-General did not have time to reply to me at that time.
I should like to make another point. The Minister described a virtual Grand National course of obligations that have to be surmounted, together with the parliamentary procedures, before a freezing order is ever made. Would it not assist in lowering the fences if it were quite clear from the wording of the Bill that it related to terrorism, as my noble friend suggested in his amendment?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No. At the time when action had to be taken, it would not necessarily be possible to prove that terrorism was involved. That is why we seek these broader powers and constrain them in a way that I hope meets with the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas.
Lord Goodhart: The debate has gone on longer and ranged a good deal wider than I anticipated when I moved this amendment. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised the question of the possible use of the clause to restrain or freeze the assets of dictators. I agree with what the Minister said in that regard.
I end by not being satisfied with the Government's response. As regards the drafting, the Minister did not attempt to dispute my interpretation; that is, that it is within the wording of the Bill as it now stands that it should cover the competitive bidding for overseas investment that I was describing. I specifically chose the example of Switzerland because I wished to choose a state which was not part of the European Union.
It is certainly unsatisfactory if we have to rely for the restriction on the extreme width of Clause 4 on international obligations, the rules of the World Trade Organisation and so forth. It would be better if on the face of the Bill some limitation could be imposed on the width of Clause 4. I entirely accept that Clause 4 is not intended to be limited to terrorism and that my amendment is therefore inappropriate. But that gives rise to the wider problem raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and it again discloses a problem dealt with by many speakers yesterday, including myself. This is a wholly inappropriate use of emergency legislation because it goes well beyond the emergency.
Having said that, I cannot redraft the legislation for the Government. It is unsatisfactory. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 38 to 40 not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
Schedule 3 [Freezing orders]:
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page