Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Liam Byrne (Labour) in the House of Commons on Monday, 8 February 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill.


Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill

I understand that, but I think that the protection in place is appropriate, because in the first instance we are dealing with whether there is reasonable suspicion—and reasonable suspicion is the right point on which to rely, because we are seeking to act in a pre-emptive manner in order to ensure that the economic resources available to somebody involved in terrorist activity are not used for a terrorist attack or the maintenance of terrorist infrastructure. The test of reasonable suspicion is a lower one, but clear guidance as to what constitutes reasonable suspicion is available. It is important that the courts are able to look at the evidence available to a Minister, on which that Minister relies, and investigate whether they made a proper and rational decision based on it. Thus, a second test also needs to be considered: whether the asset-freezing order put in place is needed for the protection of the public.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
505 c663 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Disclosure of information Assets Crown dependencies Channel Islands Finance Licensing Human rights Legal aid scheme EU law Isle of Man National security Parliamentary scrutiny Terrorism United Nations Supreme Court UN resolutions al Qaeda Taliban Freezing of assets Sunset clauses
Legislation
Terrorist Asset-freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill 2009-10
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk