Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill

My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point, and it was because of the lack of parliamentary scrutiny that the Supreme Court reached the conclusion that it did on the orders. Let me continue to quote from paragraph 61. It goes on to say that"““fundamental rights cannot be overridden by general or ambiguous words. The absence of any indication that Parliament had the imposition of restrictions on the freedom of individuals in mind when the provisions of the 1946 Act were being debated makes it impossible to say that it squarely confronted those effects and was willing to accept the political cost when that measure was enacted. In my opinion””" the terrorism order"““is ultra vires section 1(1) of the 1946 Act””." So if there had been a proper parliamentary process that had sanctioned depriving those who were suspected of involvement in terrorist acts of their rights, the Supreme Court would not have quashed the orders, but in the absence of that process, the Court felt that the powers were outside the scope of the Act. As several right hon. and hon. Members have said, there were plenty of warnings. In addition to the way in which the case was pursued through the courts, there were three other warnings to the Government about the risk that they were taking in using the 1946 Act as the basis of the terrorist freezing orders. Those warnings were the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Sierra Leone in 1999, the Newton committee report of 2003, and the precedents used in other common law jurisdictions. I shall say a little about them to demonstrate that the Government had the warnings but chose not to hear them. The Foreign Affairs Committee looked at how the Government imposed sanctions on Sierra Leone using the 1946 Act, and highlighted the need to use primary legislation to underpin the future use of those powers. In its 1999 report, the Committee drew attention to the way in which a resolution of the Security Council about the imposition of sanctions against Sierra Leone had been implemented by an Order in Council, but the Security Council resolution did not define Sierra Leone, leaving the extent of its application ambiguous. The Order in Council defined it in terms that removed any ambiguity but arguably went beyond the scope of the resolution. In the same way, in the present order the Government arguably went beyond the scope of the Security Council resolution that they were seeking to implement. In its report, the Committee said that the way in which the Order in Council was dealt with was unacceptable as it was subject to no parliamentary procedure. Had it been necessary—this goes back to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal—for a Minister to appear before a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation or to defend the order on the Floor of the House of Lords, it was likely that wider attention would have been given to its true meaning and extent. In paragraph 23 of its report the Select Committee recommended that"““the United Nations Act 1946 be amended so that delegated legislation made under section 1 was subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament.””" So the Foreign Affairs Committee highlighted the problem that we see today, where the order overreached the Security Council resolution, and recommended that the affirmative resolution procedure should be used in the future. A second warning arose from Lord Newton's review of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which conferred powers on the Treasury to make freezing orders on residents of a country or territory outside the UK. Comment has already been made about the number of Acts on the statute book that could be used to freeze assets. A point that Justice made in its submission on the Bill was to ask why parts 1 and 2 of that Act and parts of the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 could not have been used in place of the Bill. It would be helpful if the Minister addressed that issue when winding up the debate, as it has triggered widespread concern. The 2001 Act was reviewed by a Committee of Privy Counsellors chaired by Lord Newton. Lord Newton said in his report that powers under part 2 were unlikely to be used while the 2001 order was in place. He argued in his conclusions that"““freezing orders for specific use against terrorism should be addressed again in primary legislation, based on the well-tested provisions of the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2001””." This is another warning that the basis of the orders should be explicit in primary legislation. In retrospect, the 2001 order might not be seen as robust as later iterations, but the point that Lord Newton made about primary legislation is still valid. The third warning was the way in which other nations have implemented the orders. Having originally opted for implementation using their equivalents of the 1946 Act, New Zealand and Australia subsequently set up the orders using primary legislation. Lord Hope responded to this by stating in paragraph 50 of the judgment:"““The regimes that both Australia and New Zealand have introduced by means of primary legislation are exacting. But they contain various, albeit limited, safeguards and in so far as they interfere with basic rights of the individual that interference has been expressly authorised by their respective legislatures.””" That is not the route that the Government have chosen to go down. So there were warnings from the Foreign Affairs Committee and Lord Newton's committee and the precedent from other common law jurisdictions that primary legislation was the preferred route, but the Government chose to ignore those and we have to put through this emergency legislation today. No one should be under any illusions about the gravity of the measures in the Bill. Because the Supreme Court quashed the orders on Thursday morning, those subject to the orders could have accessed their bank accounts and the financial system with impunity since then. The Treasury sought the co-operation of the financial services sector to ensure that this could not happen, even though those subject to the order have the same right as you and I to use those assets. I should like to ask the Minister about the period between the Supreme Court's quashing of the orders on Thursday and the Bill gaining Royal Assent. Can she confirm that the provisions in clause 2 are sufficient to protect banks and other financial institutions from claims made by those subject to the freezing orders if, between 4 February and Royal Assent, they sought to withdraw money from their bank accounts? Has the Treasury granted an indemnity to any financial institution covered by this? Where the Treasury has been given powers to grant further directions in clause 1(3)(a), can the Minister clarify under which order—the 2001 order, the 2006 order or the 2009 order—new directions would be issued where a terror suspect has been recently identified? The final point that I want to raise with the Minister, to which I will return at greater length in the Committee stage, is the sunset clause. As I indicated in an intervention on the Chief Secretary, until last Thursday there was only one plan in town. It was to publish a longer, substantial Bill that would put the freezing orders on a proper footing through primary legislation, with a view to completing the parliamentary process by no later than 31 March 2010. That is the document that was published last week. The view then was that that would give time for adequate scrutiny and it would have allowed Parliament to debate the measures properly. That is the offer that was on the table, and we reiterated to the Exchequer Secretary last Thursday that we were content to continue down that route, as well as participating in discussion of the Bill today. We believe it is right for this to happen, and it would reduce the period during which the Government were dependent on this emergency Bill. That is the basis of the amendment that we will move later. The issue demonstrates the importance of reviewing the patchwork of anti-terrorism legislation. In its submission, Justice asked why parts 1 and 2 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and parts of the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 could not be used in place of the Bill. Surely it is time to move beyond a piecemeal approach to national security legislation, and consolidate the legislation and ensure that it is compatible with fundamental rights and freedoms. The Bill is necessary, because without it those suspected of involvement in terrorist activity could have been free to use their financial assets and the financial system. We do not know how they would have used this freedom, but it would have been reckless for the Government not to take steps to restrict that access, given the Supreme Court's ruling. But in supporting the Government's actions today, we cannot and will not ignore the fact that the Government are in this mess because they failed, despite all the warnings, to put the orders on to a proper basis. To deny people's right to the freedoms that we take for granted, they bypassed Parliament and failed to seek Parliament's approval for the action that they took. The Government's repeated failure to respect Parliament has led them to the position that they are in today. In 2006 the Prime Minister said that"““as terrorist finance operates on a global scale, we know that we are only as strong as our weakest links.””." Today proves that the weakest link was the Treasury, the Department that the Prime Minister ran. It was the Department that failed to put the orders on to a proper footing. It failed to respect Parliament. It failed to respond to the warning signs from home and abroad. In passing the Bill tonight, we are bailing out the Prime Minister and getting the Government out of a hole, but it is the right thing to do to safeguard our country.