---

Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill

The parliamentary experience of the noble Lord, Lord King, once again shines forth for the benefit of the whole House, and my own inexperience is visible to all. However, I think that I said words to the effect of, ““if it were left to me”” or, ““I would use my own efforts””. Far be it for someone as humble as me to anticipate the content of the Queen’s Speech. I am grateful to the noble Lord for correcting me if I seemed presumptive in that respect. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made a very thoughtful contribution. I am sure that we will see much more of the logic behind her arguments displayed in Committee. In my opening comments I endeavoured to address some of the issues that will be raised by the amendments, but no doubt she will reflect on whether I have provided an adequate response or whether she still wishes those amendments to be placed before the Committee. I heard what she said about judicial review but I emphasise that it is not a light touch. It is a serious challenge and we should not disregard its powerful protection against abuse of privilege by the Executive. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about the basis of individual need. The Treasury carefully evaluates, and it has certainly sought to ensure, that its understanding of the needs of individuals is properly taken into consideration in the permitted licensing arrangements. I go back to the question raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, in respect of the amounts of money frozen. The 2006 order was quashed from 4 February. The 2001 and 2009 orders are still in force but are at risk of being quashed on the same grounds as the 2006 order. As regards frozen funds, all £150,000 remains frozen; £135,000 under the 2001 and 2009 orders, because they remain in force, and £16,500 under the 2006 order because we are giving the banks retrospective legal cover in this Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, also asked about a Section 19 statement based on the ECHR not applying. I advise her that we do not rely on the al-Jedda judgment. As regards Section 19 certification, we believe that the Bill is fully compliant with human rights requirements. I re-emphasise that I absolutely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, about the importance of primary legislation. With hindsight, we wish that we had not relied on the powers in the United Nations Act 1946, but we are now somewhat belatedly seeking to rectify that with primary legislation. I think that I have covered most of the points raised. I must emphasise again that these are times of severe threat to our national security. We cannot afford to fail to take the necessary steps to prevent terrorists raising and using funds for terrorist purposes. Without the primary legislation before this House, we would leave gaps in our defences which people who intend serious harm to the British public would be able to exploit. At the same time, the Bill will provide Parliament with the time needed to consider and debate the permanent legislation in full. I therefore commend the Bill to the House. House resumed. Clause 1 : Temporary validity of certain Orders in Council Amendment 1 Moved by