Cable on the Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill

11.54.31am GMT Sat 13th Feb 2010

• [Feb 08] Vincent Cable: ' . . THE Bill has been described as very bad legislation. More importantly, in some ways, the legislation- not in our view but in the view of the Supreme Court justices-is unnecessary. That is why we remain highly sceptical about its validity . . '

We have heard three speeches in support of the Bill. I have to say that Liberal Democrat Members are not yet persuaded, but we will listen to the remainder of the arguments.

Under Security Council resolution 1373, the UK Government are obliged to take action to prevent and suppress the financing of terrorist acts and to freeze without delay the funds or other financial assets of persons who commit or attempt to commit terrorist acts. If there were purely a technical problem in giving effect to that resolution, we would all be bending over backwards to help the Government to achieve their aim; certainly, we do not want floods of money going into the acquiring of terrorist weaponry. However, that is not the issue; the issue is the position of the Supreme Court. I do not usually read Supreme Court rulings-I spend my time reading much more exciting things such as tables of economic statistics-but I was amazed by the trenchancy of the language, with references to "draconian", "drastic", "oppressive" and "paralysing" activities within the framework of these orders. The Bill has been described as very bad legislation. More importantly, in some ways, the legislation- not in our view but in the view of the Supreme Court justices-is unnecessary. That is why we remain highly sceptical about its validity.

More positively, I appreciate the fact that the Government have consulted quite extensively over the past few days. I have been consulted more extensively than at any time in my past five years in this job-even more than I was at the height of the banking crisis. In my more generous moments, I think that a spirit of consensus has broken out within Government; in my more cynical moments, I think that the Government are in a hole and desperately trying to get everybody on board. However, we will approach this constructively. My hon. Friend David Howarth and I have tabled a series of amendments that are intended to be constructive and to deal with what we think are the defects in the Bill, particularly the lack of clarity in the safeguards governing reasonable suspicion and the appeals process.

I pay tribute to the non-governmental organisations, Justice and Liberty, which have produced at very short notice-it is only 24 hours since the legislation was published in draft form-extremely impressive and detailed notes cross-referencing the legal points. That is particularly helpful to people like me who are not lawyers and tend to approach these complex legal and constitutional issues with all the enthusiasm of an ordinary member of the public faced with a mathematical economic treatise.

In terms of the nature of the problem to be addressed, let me deal first with the question whether this legislation is necessary. We have had an extended discussion, prompted by my hon. Friends the Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for Cambridge, about whether it would be possible to use the alternative powers that are available, with a lengthy exchange on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. I was surprised to see Ministers swatting aside the judgments of Supreme Court justices as if they had perpetrated some elementary undergraduate error in failing to understand what the existing Acts were all about. It is possible that Lord Hope and his colleagues do not have a basic understanding of the law, but that strikes me as being rather unlikely. However, let us assume for the moment that they are wrong-that they completely misinterpreted what the 2001 Act was all about and failed to realise that there were limitations on its use. In that context, it is worth quoting what Justice said in its summary of the alternative legal powers:

"there are already a great many provisions in UK law that give effect to the government's obligations under resolution 1373. These include sections 14-19 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (criminalising the use of funds or other property for purposes connected with terrorism); Parts 1 and 2 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001"

and

"the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (control orders). Even the provisions of the Proceedings of Crime Act 1998 may be used to seize funds that result from terrorist activity."

I hope that Ministers will give us a clear explanation as to why these powers are not usable or not appropriate, because the Supreme Court evidently thinks that they are.

674

10249

John Gummer (Suffolk Coastal, Conservative): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that there is a significant amount of doubt about this brings us back to the point that if the Government had introduced in the House the provisions that they put through outside the House, then precisely these issues could have been raised by Members of Parliament, which is the way that Parliament ought to be used?

676

10084

Vincent Cable: I am sure that that is right. Mr. Hogg referred to the fact that the Supreme Court justices had described this whole process as an offence against democracy, and that is a striking way of summarising what the right hon. Gentleman says about Parliament being the democratic forum in which these debates are properly conducted.

Let me turn to the reasons why the Supreme Court justices considered these powers, which we are legitimising for a further period-the best part of a year-as draconian, drastic, oppressive and paralysing, and go over some of the points that were made. The Government quoted Lord Brown in support a few moments ago because he ruled in their favour on one order. None the less, Lord Brown said in his comments:

"The draconian nature of the regime imposed under these asset-freezing Orders can hardly be overstated. Construe and apply them how one will-and to my mind they should have been construed and applied altogether more benevolently than they appear to have been-they are scarcely less restrictive of the day-to-day life of those designated (and in some cases their families) than are control orders. In certain respects, indeed, they could be thought to be even more paralysing."

As for the orders' impact on family life, the former Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, intervened a few moments ago to say that the Government had made an announcement to the effect that the family provisions would be relaxed. However, as I understand it, they are being enforced currently, and were described by a Supreme Court justice in the following terms:

"The overall result is very burdensome on all the members of the designated person's family. The impact on normal family life is remorseless and it can be devastating".

That language is not moderate, especially coming from people in a profession normally associated with understatement.

The deputy president, Lord Hope, concluded in discussing the orders:

"The consequences of the Orders that were made in this case are so drastic and so oppressive that we must be just as alert to see that the coercive action that the Treasury have taken really is within the powers that the 1946 Act has given them."

That is strong stuff. We should take note of it, not merely of the purely legal points being disputed.

We return to two central principles. The first is the point about reasonable suspicion. The notes prepared for us by Justice and Liberty state that other countries with similar approaches to the law have also grappled with this problem: what is the right balance between absolute proof and reasonable suspicion? Even the Australians, who could hardly be accused of being soft on terrorism and who have had to cope with bombings in Bali and elsewhere, apply a tougher standard of proof. A Minister must be persuaded that an individual is involved in terrorism. That is a somewhat stricter test than reasonable suspicion, which is why my colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge and I have tabled amendments to strengthen the safeguards on that point.

On appeals, it is worth recalling again what Lord Rodger, another justice, said:

"the harsh reality is that mistakes in designating will inevitably occur and, when they do, the individuals who are wrongly designated will find their funds and assets frozen and their lives disrupted, without their having any realistic prospect of putting matters right."

That is why appeals should be heard on issues of substance and not simply of procedure.

676

10283

Douglas Hogg (Sleaford & North Hykeham, Conservative): rose-

677

10084

Vincent Cable: I know that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and Mr. Gummer have been trying strenuously to communicate in this debate, so I will give way.

677

10283

Douglas Hogg (Sleaford & North Hykeham, Conservative): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Will he also keep in mind page 19 of the 2004 report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights? It makes the point that judicial review, which is the only protection afforded by the draft Bill and indeed the order, affords

"only a very limited protection against legislative orders of this kind, except where they contravene European Community law."

We must recognise that judicial review per se is not an examination of the merits of an order.

677

10084

Vincent Cable: Exactly. That is the point that I made, and I am grateful for the clarification.

It is to the Government's credit that they have acknowledged the problems arising from the case and are now discussing a sunset clause. There is a debate to be had about what a realistic period is. The Government propose 10 months, and I think that the Conservatives have proposed until the end of March. It is difficult to see how a Select Committee could do a proper review or both Houses could take a proper approach to the review of legislation by the end of March.

Equally, though, one should not overestimate how much time such things take. Reviews can run concurrently rather than consecutively, and Mr. Dismore helpfully suggested that his Committee works fast. We are not at all persuaded that 31 July is too far away for a proper scrutiny of legislation with proper debate and all the necessary stages in Parliament.

In conclusion, problems arise when legislation is introduced very rapidly on a 24-hour basis. Long before I got involved in politics-in the year I got married, which was just over 40 years ago-my wife and I discovered while we were making wedding preparations that her family and most of our friends who were British subjects were being declared stateless by the British Parliament, because they happened to be east African Asians. On the basis of a panic and "facts" that subsequently turned out to be wholly incorrect, they were, in effect, systematically stripped of their British citizenship.

That was not the first case of fast-track legislation, and the Bill before us will not be the last, but we must learn from experience that legislation taken in great haste and panic is often very bad legislation. Liberty's evidence on emergency legislation to the Constitutional Committee sums up not just the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968 but the Bill perfectly:

"When legislation is introduced into Parliament and passed within a few weeks or even days it is impossible for Parliament fully to analyse and debate the proposals put before it. It is also extremely difficult for NGOs and civil society to have the time to examine the proposals and brief parliamentarians on the likely impact...Legislation drafted in haste will inevitably contain errors, be they minor or more substantial. Even more worryingly, the policy behind such legislation will at best be ill-thought out and at worst may be motivated by political objectives to be 'seen' to be responding to an event or judgment."

That is exactly where we are today.

Related Link:

• Full Debate in Parliament