Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill [HL]

I am grateful to the Minister. I am also very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and to the noble Lords, Lord Lester of Herne Hill and Lord Bach, for their support. I fear that the wording of Clause 26(3) will inevitably lead to considerable uncertainty. When persons win their appeals against designation orders—and some of them will—they will inevitably ask for damages and the court will have to decide whether Clause 26(3) embodies a discretion for it to award damages. I am concerned that the House should understand clearly what the Government’s position is. In Committee, Amendment 46 moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson of Glen Clova, required the Bill to state expressly: "““The Secretary of State shall, by order, provide for the compensation of persons who have suffered loss as a result of an incorrect designation””.—[Official Report, 6/10/10; col. 190.]" The noble and learned Lord told the Committee that the purpose of his amendment was to, "““compensate those persons who have suffered loss as a result of having assets wrongly frozen, when the person holding the asset has acted in good faith and without negligence””.—[Official Report, 6/10/10; col. 191.]" There was some support in Committee for such a provision. In responding on behalf of the Government, the Minister said: "““Should a designated person or any other person wish to seek compensation for loss suffered as a result of an incorrect designation, we believe that there are sufficient existing opportunities available for them to do so … we believe that it would be possible, in connection with a successful challenge against the designation, for the person to claim damages””.—[Official Report, 6/10/10; col. 193.]" However, I understand the Minister today to be saying something very different, which is that the court would enjoy the right to award damages only if the individual were able to establish some other legal basis for the award of damages—a breach of the Human Rights Act or a tort. If I have misunderstood the Minister, I should be grateful if he tells me and the House. This is a very important matter and it is absolutely vital that the House understands precisely the Government’s position and intention on this, and that the Bill is clear, so that those who read the legislation know exactly where they stand. I respectfully ask the Minister to think about this matter again over the next few days, to read the debate and, indeed, the debate in Committee, and consider whether it would be possible to come up with some words to clarify the position. I entirely accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, that this is not an appropriate matter on which to divide the House—certainly today—but I would be grateful if the Minister would think about the matter again. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 21 withdrawn. Clause 27 : Review of other decisions by the court Clause 27 : Review of other decisions by the court Amendment 22 not moved. Clause 28 : Appeals and reviews: supplementary Amendment 23 Clause 28 : Appeals and reviews: supplementary Amendment 23 Moved by