Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill [HL]

I will also speak to Amendments 8 and 9. The term in Clause 2 with which I am particularly concerned is ““involved””. It may look from my amendments as if I am more bothered about the definition of ““terrorist activity””. I am a little bothered about that, but more concerned about what is meant by ““involvement””. I changed ““terrorist activity”” to ““terrorist acts”” simply to make it flow better. The term ““involved in terrorism”” seems to me very wide, so I hope that the Minister will explain where it comes from and what the precedents for it are. It looks to me as if the term comes from the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 provisions on control orders, which we are all agreed is a tough regime. The Terrorism Act 2000 used a different term, ““concerned in terrorism””, in relation to deciding whether to proscribe an organisation. I am told by people from Liberty—I am grateful for their help, which I asked for late last night—that the term ““involved in terrorism”” has been interpreted by the courts under the control order regime and has been applied even where the person concerned has been acquitted of a terrorism offence. Liberty referred me to the cases involving AY and MB. Therefore, it seems that ““involved in”” requires only a suspicion of involvement rather than an actual charge or conviction. Although we have spent a good deal of time on suspicion and belief in the debate on Amendment 1, I think that we are back in the realms of suspicion in this group as well. If I am right that the term ““involved in”” is taken from the 2005 Act, I should perhaps go on to ask about the different terminology that is used as the provision goes on. The 2005 Act talks about ““involvement in terrorism-related activity””, which is not quite what is referred to in the Bill. The courts could distinguish between the two terms and, indeed, that might be what the Minister intends. I felt that I should raise the point at this early stage of the debate. As other noble Lords will have seen, the briefing from the Equality and Human Rights Commission takes the view that such a threshold is not only too widely drawn but is in excess of what is required by UN Resolution 1373 of 2001. Let me try to shorten the debate a little—I think that this group of amendments need not detain us nearly as long as the previous one—by acknowledging the provision in Clause 2(1)(b), which requires that the Treasury be of the view that the designation would be "““necessary for purposes connected with protecting members of the public””." I accept that that is a reassuring condition. However, I am concerned that the term ““involved in terrorist activity”” might extend to someone who happens to have been a bystander or who has just been associated with someone a bit more dodgy. The person might just have happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I do not know whether this is a fair analogy to draw, but I am aware of concerns in another part of the legal forest about another term that has now, I am afraid, completely gone from me. That tells me that one should make proper notes. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Carlile knows the term that applies where a gang of people who were standing around happen to have seen a murder and are charged. Can you help me, Alex?