Counter-Terrorism Bill

moved Amendment No. 105J: 105J: Before Clause 69, insert the following new Clause— ““Application to set aside asset freezing decision (1) This section applies to any decision of the Treasury in connection with the exercise of any of their functions under— (a) the UN terrorism orders, or (b) Part 2 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (c. 24) (freezing orders). (2) Any person affected by the decision may apply to the High Court or, in Scotland, the Court of Session to set aside the decision. (3) In determining whether the decision should be set aside the court shall apply the principles applicable on an application for judicial review. (4) If the court decides that a decision should be set aside it may make any such order, or give any such relief, as may be made or given in proceedings for judicial review. (5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4), if the court sets aside a decision of the Treasury— (a) to give a direction under any of the UN terrorism orders, or (b) to make a freezing order under Part 2 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (c.24), the court must quash the relevant direction or order. (6) This section applies whether the decision of the Treasury was made before or after the commencement of this section. (7) After the commencement of this section an application to set aside a decision of the Treasury to which this section applies must be made under this section.”” The noble Lord said: The purpose of Part 5 is to make express provision for circumstances where the basis for a designation, or any other decision of the Treasury regarding the freezing of a person’s assets under the UN terrorism orders, is challenged in court proceedings, but where the reasons for the decision cannot be disclosed because disclosure would be contrary to the public interest and involve closed source material. The proposal is that closed source material relevant to the Treasury’s decision would be considered at a closed hearing for which a special advocate, a security-vetted barrister, would represent the interests of the designated person. The provisions will align the procedure for court proceedings relating to asset freezes with other similar national security procedures—for example, control order reviews and appeals, appeals to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission or the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission. The Treasury aims to keep the special advocate provisions in the Bill as close to those other procedures as possible. The amendments make one extension of scope and one procedural change. They extend the provision of Part 5 to cover freezing orders under Part 2 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. This extension will ensure that challenges to asset freezes under the Act are subject to the same court procedure as applies to those made under the UN terrorism order. It will ensure that the court is able properly to review the reasons for the Treasury’s decision, applying judicial review principles, even where the reasons for the decision, or part of those reasons, cannot be disclosed openly because they involve closed source material. The amendments also seek to ensure that all decisions made under the ATCSA and the UN terrorism orders can be challenged under the Part 5 procedure by providing a statutory basis for any challenge under the UN terrorism orders and Part 2 of ATCSA to be challenged, and by providing for that challenge to be governed by the Part 5 procedure which we will set out in detail in Rules of Court to be made under Part 5. The amendment is an improvement on the existing provision that lists the specific decisions to be taken by the Treasury, which has the potential to give rise to uncertainty where the decision challenged does not fall precisely into one of the categories listed. In practical terms, we do not see the amendment as widening the scope of the provisions. The amendments revoke the provisions in the current legislation relating to challenges while providing more coherent replacements. I commend the amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.