My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I recognise, as I said in opening this debate, the force of the arguments in favour of the Government’s approach. However, we have to be clear about what it comes down to. Justice for the individual who is designated, in circumstances where the High Court of Justice in this country regards the designation as arbitrary or as in conflict with the rule of law, must be sacrificed to the interests of the UN, our participation in the UN and the international legal order. There is no right answer to that question. I happen to believe that to obtain justice for the individual in that case, if and when it occurs, who is being designated in this country and who is suffering the consequences—their bank account is frozen, they cannot travel, and they are experiencing whatever the other adverse consequences are—they must have a legal remedy. There is no legal remedy available to them through the UN. There are political processes but there is no judicial procedure and no quasi-judicial procedure other than in terrorism cases. How can this possibly accord with the human rights principles and with the principles of the rule of law, which I know the Minister respects and which the Government are so keen on promulgating, and rightly so?
7.15 pm
Of course we want to encourage other countries to comply with international law. However, that should not be at the expense of justice for the individual who is designated if that individual can persuade the independent judge of the High Court that his or her designation is an outrage and that it is in defiance of the rules of procedural fairness or if it is arbitrary.
Noble Lords who have spoken against the amendment have emphasised the conflict between international law and the rule of law. They have to accept that there is no other context—certainly none has been mentioned in this debate—where an individual who is subject to such a damaging decision has no legal remedy in this country other than the hope and the expectation that the Minister will do his or her best on their behalf, and if the Minister fails the court can do absolutely nothing about it. I suggest that to maintain the rule of law and to allow the court in exceptional circumstances to grant an effective remedy after the best endeavours have failed—and only after they have failed—will assist the Minister in best endeavours. The UN will recognise that if it does not take action to remedy the injustice, the court in this country may take action. That will focus the mind of the UN and will make it far less likely that there would be any conflict between international law and the rule of law. In other words, to allow the domestic court to have power in this context will ensure that the Minister does not, as it were, go legally naked into the UN conference chamber.
I hope this matter will be taken up when the Bill travels through the other place. As noble Lords will appreciate, I feel strongly about this. It is a fundamental question of justice, principle and the rule of law—respecting, as I do, the opinions expressed by the Minister and by other noble Lords. It is a difficult issue, but I take a different view from the Minister. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.