Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Sassoon (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 6 October 2010. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill [HL].


Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill [HL]

If my noble friend will permit me to go on, I will get to the answer to that challenge and explain why, in the round, the current construct works. We need the most effective method of informing the financial sector and other parties of their asset-freezing obligations to limit the risk of the prohibitions in the Bill being unwittingly breached in relation to funds being diverted for terrorist purposes. I accept that such an aim is not inconsistent with Amendments 12 and 13, but, if I may go on, let me complete what I was saying about our reasoning for believing that the Bill as it stands works well. We recognise that, yes, publication would interfere with the listed person’s right to respect for their private life, but we believe that greater weight must be given to the public interest in ensuring that a designation is effective and that a designation will be most effective when generally publicised. Indeed, the Supreme Court has acknowledged the public interest in publicising designations generally. In January, the court ruled that the identity of four designated persons could be made public and that anonymity orders were justified only in an extreme case where there was significant risk to the designated persons or their families. There are no reports of any individual being harmed as a result of their asset freeze being publicised. Indeed, general publication is consistent with international best practice and the FATF guidance. The EU publishes on its website details of those persons who have been designated under the respective regimes. If the UK were to cease publicising designations generally in all cases other than when a restricted publication was justified under Clause 3(3), that would give rise to an approach that was inconsistent with those of international partners and international guidance and best practice. For the reasons that I have set out, I hope that your Lordships will support maintaining the current drafting of the Bill and that my noble friend will withdraw Amendment 12.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
721 c163 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disclosure of information Compensation Civil liberties Appeals Assets Bank services Banks Court orders Advocacy Financial services Financial institutions Insurance International cooperation Money laundering Terrorism Stocks and shares Treasury Sequestration of assets High Court
Legislation
Terrorist Asset-freezing etc Bill (HL) 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk