---

Terrorism Bill

I have said about six times now that I am not discussing this case, but I shall return to the facts and remind your Lordships what I have already said on the powers that we have under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Section 1(4). We already have under the control orders an ability to prohibit the person’s possession of specified things or articles, their use of specified services or specified facilities or their carrying on of specified activities, and restrictions in respect of their business. Those issues that we have under Section 1(4) enable us to control what an individual does with the assets that he has. The reason why the use is important is that we need to be clear that the punitive obligations are in relation to the use, not the possession, of such an asset. We would have to look at the risk posed. Any of the control orders can be made in relation to controlling that identified risk. The combination of the provisions we have under Section 1(4) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and the Terrorism Acts 2002 and 2001 gives us a broad spectrum of powers to enable us to control appropriately such assets and the use to which they are put by those identified as terrorists or the financers of terrorists. I have already dealt with the first part of the argument and simply seek to reassure noble Lords that we can freeze assets too, so as to ensure that they are not used. I will repeat it if it assists noble Lords: the orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act can include gold, cash, deposits and securities—which include stocks, shares and debentures—and removing them from the control of those who have been identified under the Act as capable of having their property removed from them. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Elton, because I cannot say it more comprehensively.