As we know, the measures are fairly draconian, but what does the Minister think was the original intention? Was the standard that the Government would have only to say that a person was involved in terrorism, or would they have needed a reasonable suspicion or evidence? What was the standard or test originally and what is it today? Could it be that the original test required something higher?
Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Humfrey Malins
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 8 February 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
505 c656 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 19:56:52 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_624602
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_624602
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_624602