---

Terrorism Bill

I assure the noble Lord that in relation to the security of government sites appropriate measures are taken by the Government, and indeed have been taken by every government that went before us. The most vigorous attention is paid to our security, not least because of the sensitivities with which we now find ourselves and which we have been talking about throughout the passage of this Bill. Therefore, I assure noble Lords that the Government are as sensitive to our vulnerabilities as are various Members of the Committee. I can also say to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that we understand the import of the noble Baroness’s questions. But it is a difficult matter because the whole debate is predicated on certain assertions being made by and about certain individuals, which may or may not be true. If someone had been identified as a terrorist or as being involved in terrorist activity, it would be clear that under the legislation that we have there would be trenchant opportunities for us to intervene, to remove his property, to control his activities, and to ensure that he was disabled from getting the information and taking adventitious advantage of resources which would inure to the disadvantage and detriment of our country. However, where such persons carry out lawful activity, it is right that we should not be able to intervene or interfere in the proper exercise of that activity in a way that is disproportionate and unjustified. That is the balance that we have to make. But in terms of those involved in terrorist activities, the control orders and provisions made in this Bill would then bite. So we have the ability to deal with matters under the Proceeds of Crime Act, as I have just described, and the 2001 Act. The Act also includes an obligation on the financial sector to report where there are reasonable grounds to suspect terrorist financing, and it gives us a power to freeze the assets at the start of an investigation, thus reducing the risk that funds will be used or moved.