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.
Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Liam Byrne
(Labour)
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 c663 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 19:54:52 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_624635
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_624635
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_624635