Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill [HL]

My Lords, Amendments 9 and 11 require the Treasury to apply to the court to make an interim designation. As I set out in Committee, the Government continue to believe that Ministers are best placed to take decisions to impose asset freezes, but it is absolutely right that these decisions should be subject to intense scrutiny by the courts in cases where a person wishes to challenge the asset freeze. I believe that there are three compelling reasons why decisions to impose asset freezes should be taken by the Executive. First, they are preventive, not punitive, measures taken on the basis of operational advice to protect national security. It is accepted practice for such decisions to be taken by Ministers, who take decisions to impose proscriptions, deprivations of citizenship and exclusions. Secondly, Ministers are then accountable for these decisions to Parliament and the courts. This clear accountability and their broad view of the threat posed mean that Ministers are best placed to weigh the protection of national security with the interests of the designated person. Thirdly, there are strong international comparisons for this practice. The US, Australia, Canada and New Zealand all entrust asset-freezing decisions to the Executive, whereas the noble and learned Lord’s amendment would introduce mandatory court involvement in the making of interim asset-freezing decisions. With permission, I should like to set out why the Government do not believe, as a matter of principle, that any asset-freezing decisions need to be approved by the courts. I accept, for example, that control orders work differently and are approved in this way, but the Government do not believe that the courts should have the same role in asset freezing, because the circumstances are clearly different. Asset freezes interfere with property rights but they do not impact on human rights to the same extent as control orders, which can impose restrictions on movement, association and communication. Furthermore, in contrast to control orders, asset freezing is not primarily used against people in the UK who cannot be prosecuted or deported. Indeed, as we have already discussed, only about 10 per cent of asset-freezing cases involve people who are in the UK or hold funds here and who have not been prosecuted for a terrorist offence. In cases where people are prosecuted for terrorist offences, evidence against them will be brought before a court. In the case of terrorist groups or individuals overseas, the asset freeze has a less direct impact because it applies only within UK jurisdiction. Overseas terrorist groups and individuals have not challenged their asset freezes in the UK courts and we do not believe that mandatory court decision-making or approval would add any real value in these cases. Indeed, it may even provide groups such as Hamas with a public platform on which to challenge the UK’s operational and foreign policy decisions. We therefore believe that the right way to recognise the need for proper judicial scrutiny over asset freezing is not to introduce mandatory court involvement but, rather, to make it clear that there is robust court scrutiny of cases where individuals or entities wish to challenge their freezes. The Government therefore brought forward amendments to the Bill to specify that challenges to designations should be on the basis of an appeal, rather than judicial review. Although I realise that judicial involvement is a principle on which certain noble Lords will have strong views—one certainly—I hope that they will be able to accept that the right way forward is to maintain the current drafting of the Bill and I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, whether he is prepared to withdraw the amendment.