---

Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill

Absolutely; it is a criminal offence to give such assistance. There were queries about whether paying for an Oyster card or allowing someone to borrow a car would constitute giving them economic assistance. There was constant correspondence between the solicitors representing those individuals and the Treasury to try to determine exactly where the boundaries of the orders lay. Any new legislation must ensure that there is absolute clarity on what people are permitted to do while under designation, and on what constitutes a criminal offence. The important issue of the basis on which people are designated—the ground of reasonable suspicion—has been raised a number of times. Lord Brown said in another case in which he was discussing this standard of proof:"““To suspect something to be so is by no means to believe it to be so; it is to believe only that it may be so””." We are talking about a very low standard of proof. In quashing the order, the Supreme Court judges' statements made that clear. Some of the arguments in this debate have suggested that the Supreme Court's reasons related to the use of the United Nations Act 1946. I suggest that there is far more to it than that.