| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I draw some comfort from the last point that he made. As to his response to the first amendment to which I referred, I shall look at it carefully and see whether it might be appropriate to bring it back at Third Reading. In the meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 55 to 64 not moved.]
Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 65:
- Page 91, line 8, at end insert—
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to ensure that a person who suspects another of committing an offence does not Xtip off" that other
Lord Rooker: My Lords, as I hope that I said in Committee, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness has a sensible aim. It seeks to ensure that a person who knows or suspects another of committing an offence does not Xtip off" the other person about the fact that the police have been informed. The amendment provides protection to the person disclosing information to the police should civil or criminal proceedings be brought against him for doing so.
The first aim is already covered. As the noble Lord indicated that I said in Committee, it is covered by Section 18 of the Terrorism Act 2000 which provides that it is an offence for a person to enter into or become concerned in an arrangement which facilitates the retention or control by another of terrorist property. We genuinely believe that that meets the concerns behind the noble Lord's amendment.
The second aim is already provided for in new Section 21B, where a person discloses information to the police. The second part of the amendment is therefore unnecessary. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that response. I shall reflect on what he said. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Power to make order]:
Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 66:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 66 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 67. The argument here has already been made in Committee and, I am sure, is fresh in the Minister's memory. Why should this power be limited to protect the United Kingdom economy and United Kingdom nationals and residents? What about funds in the United Kingdom that are free for use in terrorist attacks aimed at the United States economy or United States residents? As I said in Committee, global terrorism needs to be tackled globally. We all know that the United States is the prime target for Al'Qaeda. Therefore, why cannot the Government take powers to freeze funds that are designed for terrorist use outside the United Kingdom?
So far as concerns Amendment No. 67—this amendment is similar to the one tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in Committee—we believe that the power to make an order must be constrained in some way, or, at least, to a greater extent than it is in the current draft of the Bill. As I said in Committee, it is not enough simply to show that the action about which a complaint is made will cause some damage to the United Kingdom economy. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, these are Xpushmi-pullyu" amendments. They push in one direction and pull in another. They merely cancel each other out. I hope that Amendment No. 66, which is concerned with widening the conditions for freezing orders to include threats to other countries, recognises the fact that there are strong powers to impose sanctions unilaterally. They are designed to protect our national interests but they are not appropriate measures to counter threats to other countries.
The powers will be available where an attack aimed primarily at another state also affects the United Kingdom. That, of course, is the example of September 11th, which clearly affected both United Kingdom lives and the United Kingdom economy. Other powers are available to support states which face similar threats. We have continued to implement sanctions agreed by the United Nations or in the European Union. We have also laid an Order in Council to allow enforcement in the United Kingdom of forfeiture and restraint orders made in designated countries, to include the European Union and the G7 states. Therefore, the amendment seems to be unnecessary in the light of the international powers which are available.
On the other hand, Amendment No. 67 limits the conditions only to unlawful or intentional actions against the United Kingdom economy. In that case, we do need a broad and flexible power if we are to respond effectively to ever-changing threats to our national interests. We appreciate that the conditions of Clause 4 might also be met in situations where we would not wish to act; for example, where a foreign firm was damaging United Kingdom industry through legitimate trading activity. But here, of course, the overriding obligations of European and international law, the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and the requirements for extensive scrutiny of any order will ensure that the powers are not abused.
The proposed amendment would not contribute any additional safeguard and could hamper use of the power where it was entirely appropriate. The primary subjects of the freezing order would not be subject to UK law, begging the question against whose laws their actions would be judged unlawful. That is not resolved in the amendment.
We might wish to make an order even where there was no intention of damaging the economy. It is arguable whether even the attacks on the World Trade Centre fell into that category. The built-in safeguards will be more reliable than such a subjective test. The
Amendment No. 68 would widen the trigger to cover threats to persons rather than to the lives of UK nationals. We must ensure that the use of the powers is proportionate to their serious nature but the amendment would widen the power unacceptably. The current drafting will catch actions such as kidnapping or serious injury, where there would certainly be a threat to life even if the threat were not carried out. If we change the wording to cover less serious threats to persons, that would go beyond the purpose of the emergency measures. We would find ourselves dealing with much smaller offences—for which these draconian measures would not be appropriate. I hope that the amendments will not be pressed.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, is the Minister saying that Amendment No. 66 is unnecessary because, in circumstances where there was an intention to damage the US economy, the Bill would fasten on the funds in any case?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am saying that we have other powers to support states that face similar threats. I gave the example of the sanctions agreed by the United Nations or the European Union and the powers we are getting to allow enforcement of forfeiture and restraint orders. We are not helpless in the face of threats to other states but powers under UK law should be confined to the United Kingdom.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am surprised by that reply. After all, we are allies with the United States and have been close to them for the whole of the 20th century. Is it not government policy to take as stern a view of terrorist threats to the United States as to the United Kingdom? I accept entirely the Minister's observation that there are powers in other legislation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is why we took the lead in implementing Article 5.
X(13A) If the first and second conditions are satisfied and the person concerned discloses the information or other matter in satisfaction of the third condition, that person shall not disclose that he has done so to the person whom he knows or suspects or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting that he has committed an offence under any of sections 15 to 18.
(13B) If a person discloses information or other matter in satisfaction of the third condition and does not inform the person whom he knows or suspects or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting that he has committed an offence under any of sections 15 to 18 that he has done so, it shall be a defence in any civil or criminal proceedings that the person disclosing the information or other matter did not inform such other person that he had done so in order to comply with the restriction in subsection (13A)."
10.30 p.m.
Page 3, line 8, leave out XUnited Kingdom's economy (or part of it)" and insert Xeconomy (or part of the economy) of the United Kingdom or a country or territory outside the United Kingdom".
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page