Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill [HL]

Amendment 17 stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Bach on behalf of the Official Opposition. We table it today in order to debate what the Government propose to do about people of whom they have reasonable grounds to suspect of being terrorists but have not gained further evidence to impose a further interim or final designation. If the Bill is passed in its current form, an interim designation will lapse after 30 days and the person will again have the opportunity to access their assets at potential risk to the public. The Minister will appreciate the fact that he has had support from the Opposition on crucial aspects of this Bill both in Committee and again today. However, he ought not to countenance the view that we have no anxieties about the legislation, or any actions of the Government that may be related to the legislation if and when it comes into effect. We all recognise the seriousness of the debates we have had on this important legislation. On the one hand, we have clearly heard about the rights of the individual and their dependants, who may be subject to an asset-freezing law. We have heard so eloquently expressed today, in Committee and on Second Reading the anxieties that freezing orders can restrict the ability of such people to live their lives in the way that they would choose. That of course is an encroachment on human rights and we are grateful to those noble Lords who, as members of the legal profession, are able to identify exactly which human rights are involved in this. This Chamber has enough currency with regard to those significant debates of principle for all of us to be well aware of the importance of the issues. On the other hand—this weighs with Her Majesty's Opposition as it does with the Government—we have to weigh up the issue of the rights on the other side as well: the rights of our fellow citizens to enjoy safety and security. Those rights are fundamental too, and they are fundamental to the Government, who have the job—the fundamental task—of protecting their citizens. Failure to do so could affect a large number of people in an appalling way through death, injury and the loss of loved ones. At times, we have perhaps seen those rights generalised and offered as a backdrop to legislation. I emphasise that—both when we were in government, responsible for the development of the orders, and now that we are in opposition, offering support in principle to the legislation and the basis on which it is established—it is important that the security of our citizens is guaranteed, as far as government can make that possible. We all know the threats with which we are faced, and we all know that at any time the condition of public opinion could change significantly if some further outrage occurred. That is why, when the Government argue in certain crucial areas for the necessity of executive power, we support their position, because the Executive are alone able to act preventively. Remember that that is a crucial dimension of the Bill, that the Executive are able to act preventively to protect our citizens. However, the Opposition have our anxieties and, within the context of the Bill, I feel it right that we should give voice to them. I know that the Minister could easily slip into the bolt-hole of suggesting that even the Official Opposition are straying a little from the immediate context of the Bill. I hope that he will not rush to that defence, but will address himself to our proper worries. They are these. Over the past week, we have had proposals about government expenditure. Tucked away within the expenditure budgets were proposals about surveillance. Against the various cuts announced to fundamental areas of our fellow citizens’ lives, the coalition Government have decided to ring-fence spending—some £2 billion—for the Home Office to enable the police and security services to track our e-mails and phone calls, to follow our text messages and to survey internet use. This was a surprise decision for us and, I imagine, for many members of the public and for many noble Lords. Am I to understand that we should expect legislation on that point in the near future? Is that the Government's answer to the gap when an interim designation under the Bill may fail on evidential grounds—that those new resources will be made available? Given that the noble Lord has already expressed some approval for the co-operation of the Opposition on crucial aspects of the Bill, I think that he should answer our anxieties in that respect.