Clause 34
Counter-Terrorism Bill
10:45 am
Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Security, Counter-terrorism, Crime and Policing), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)
I do. We touched on this matter last week. I understand why the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham wished to table his amendment, but it is unnecessary. If we followed his exhortation, we would have some quite large Bills. I do not believe that there is any ambiguity in the surrounding architecture of this or any other clauses in the Bill that relate to existing statutes, common law provisions or case law. It goes without saying that it is for Parliament to pass laws—good laws. Given that we already have the provision elsewhere and, as far as I can see, it has worked satisfactorily, and given the provision in the ECHR and the other oversight and safeguards that I described, new section 23B(1) makes it very clear that there is role for at least looking at claims of ownership from third parties regarding forfeited assets.
As the right hon. and learned Gentleman implies, the provision mirrors similar protections in the Proceeds of Crime Act, and Parliament did not consider, when passing that Act, that an amendment such as that which he is suggesting was necessary. It was not necessary then and I do not believe that it is necessary now. The safeguards already exist. It is not necessary to legislate in such explicit terms to prevent the courts from unjustly punishing innocent people. If we were considering the amendment—if it were not starred—I would argue that it was otiose, unnecessary and irrelevant. As was the case last week, I take the thrust of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s argument, but I do not believe it is necessary to reflect that in the Bill.