HL Deb 09 March 1995 vol 562 cc464-8

7.4 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blotch) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is the first order of its kind to be made under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. It marks a small but important improvement in our ability to co-operate internationally against terrorism. The order is the final piece of subordinate legislation needed to enable us to implement a bilateral agreement which we have signed with India. That agreement is a wide-ranging one, aimed at encouraging judicial co-operation between our countries in tracing, freezing and confiscating the proceeds and instruments of crime, including terrorist funds.

In compliance with our obligations under the agreement, the order designates India under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. In doing so, it enables the courts in the United Kingdom to enforce orders made by the Indian courts for the restraint or forfeiture of terrorist funds. In a moment I shall elaborate on the form that the order takes and on how it will work in practice. First, I should like to say a few words about the circumstances in which the order is brought before the House.

None of us would disagree that terrorism is a uniquely grave form of criminal activity. It is one of the most serious threats to public security with which we have been faced in modern times. The police, the security services and indeed the Government have, for many years, been investing great effort into defeating terrorism within the rule of the law. In recent months we have seen an enormous improvement in the overall terrorist situation within the United Kingdom. That does not mean we can afford to be complacent about the terrorist threat. Last July we sadly saw the return of Middle Eastern terrorism to the streets of London. Foreign-based terrorist groups are still active. They have proved themselves willing and able to operate across national boundaries. And many of them are keen to exploit differences in national laws to evade justice in their own countries.

International co-operation remains an essential part of the strategy against such terrorist groups. We have attached great importance to the work which has been done within government and by the police and other agencies to forge links with other countries which are also committed to eliminating terrorism. The links which this country has with India are long standing. Our respective enforcement agencies are already working together to tackle common problems. The bilateral agreement, which we have concluded with India, is a welcome opportunity to extend that co-operation into new areas. It demonstrates clearly our willingness to help the Indian authorities in their efforts to stem the flow of tainted money or property in and out of their country. It also gives a clear message to criminal organisations in India and around the world that we are not willing to see our financial systems abused for their unsavoury purposes.

We have already, with your Lordships' permission and approval, implemented another 23 similar bilateral agreements. This is the first to extend to terrorist funds. The order before the House is therefore somewhat novel in character. I shall explain briefly what it aims to do.

The Prevention of Terrorism Act, as your Lordships will know, created in UK law a system of offences, penalties and investigative powers aimed at tackling those who provide financial support for terrorist activity. It included a scheme enabling the courts to order the restraint or forfeiture of money or property belonging to those convicted of financial offences under the Act which the courts believe is destined to finance further terrorist activity. The Act paved the way for international judicial co-operation by allowing orders such as the present one to be made to enable our courts to enforce restraint and forfeiture orders similar to our own made by specified overseas countries.

The types of restraint and forfeiture orders which may be enforced under this Order in Council are defined in Article 2 at the top of page 2. This makes it clear, for example, that forfeiture orders must fit a description given in the Prevention of Terrorism Act itself. Essentially this means for present purposes that they must be in respect of funds destined for acts which we would recognise as serious terrorist offences or the proceeds of such acts or activities engaged in the furtherance of them.

Article 4 of the order makes the necessary provision to enable our courts to accept documentary evidence from overseas. Among other things it provides for the admissibility here of a certificate issued by the Indian courts giving certain information about the proceedings in that country which have led, or may lead, to the making of a forfeiture order.

Parts II, III, and IV of the order contain the schemes which enable our courts to register and enforce external restraint and confiscation orders. Your Lordships will have seen that there are separate arrangements in respect of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. These are all virtually identical.

In order for an external restraint or forfeiture order to be enforced here, it must first be registered in the High Court or, in Scotland, the Court of Session. That court must be satisfied that the correct procedures have been followed in making the order.

The order incorporates a number of safeguards to ensure that the powers it creates are not used unfairly. A forfeiture order will be registered and enforced only if the High Court is satisfied that it is in force and not subject to appeal, that the subject of the order appeared in the proceedings in which it was made or was given the opportunity to contest it, and that its enforcement would not be contrary to the interests of justice. Similar safeguards apply in respect of restraint orders.

Before an order reaches the courts it will receive careful scrutiny. Requests from India for the restraint or forfeiture of funds will be sent, in the first instance, to the United Kingdom central authority, which is in the Home Office. The central authority is experienced in dealing with requests under our existing confiscation and forfeiture agreements, which I mentioned earlier. The central authority will check whether the request falls within the terms of our agreement with India. It will then pass the request to the National Criminal Intelligence Service, which will take any necessary action in conjunction with the police and prosecutors here. If there are any doubts about a request, further information may be obtained from the Indian authorities before an application is put to the High Court or Court of Session.

Once an order has been registered in the High Court or Court of Session it may be enforced as if it were a domestic order. These procedures ensure that anyone affected by an order has an opportunity to be heard before any property is taken from them permanently.

The investigation and prosecution of illegal fund-raising activity is a singularly complex and lengthy process. It is important therefore to ensure that the right powers are put in place so that the police can take action when they need to do so. Such powers are also valuable as a deterrent. They send a clear signal that the illicit assets of terrorist organisations are not beyond the reach of the law. This will make a modest but useful contribution to countering international terrorism. I commend the order to your Lordships.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Baroness Blatch.)

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey has asked me to apologise for his absence and to say that the order has his full approval. We on these Benches are content.

Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank

My Lords, we on these Benches are also content with the order. We shall support anything which gives a clear and unequivocal message that we will play our part in combating international terrorism. We may regret the need for such orders but we should support them while scrutinising them for safeguards.

There is one question I should like to ask the Minister relating to the remarks of her colleague Mr. David Maclean in the discussion in the Fourth Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments on 2nd March. At col. 6 of the report he refers to the alternative of a free-standing restraint power and says: A free-standing restraint power would in some circumstances be a quicker and more flexible way to proceed. We intend to take the earliest opportunity to amend the enabling power in schedule 4 [of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989]. When that has been done, I shall introduce a further order under the prevention of terrorism Act creating a free-standing restraint power in respect of terrorist funds". Will the Minister explain to the House what is meant by "the earliest opportunity" and whether we may anticipate an amendment within the present parliamentary Session or at some other future date? Can she also clarify the further statement by Mr. Maclean that the present method contained in the order is a suitable and practical alternative to a free-standing restraint power? It is not clear to me why, if this is a suitable and practical alternative to a free-standing restraint power, the Government intend to take the earliest opportunity to amend the enabling power to make it a free-standing restraint power. I merely seek an explanation.

We support fully the objective of the order and will play our part in ensuring that international terrorism is combated in all its forms.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome accorded the order. I shall try to deal with the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. If I am not able to do so sufficiently fully I shall write to the noble Lord following the debate.

The Order in Council enables the High Court to restrain property in this country at an early stage by registering a restraint order made in India. This is a practical and effective way of proceeding. A free-standing restraint power is desirable as an additional measure because it will enable the court to restrain property without an order from the Indian courts provided that certain conditions, which we shall lay down in the Order in Council, are satisfied. In certain circumstances that may be a more flexible method,

As regards the introduction of the amendments, I understand that that will take place as soon as possible. The change is needed to allow the High Court more flexibility in the way it acts by enabling it to restrain property with or without a restraint order made by the Indian courts. I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.