The challenge to strike a balance between fighting against terrorism, which we all know to be a major threat, and preserving our freedoms is one of the most difficult that the House faces. Some years ago, I was on a delegation to Russia. We were guests of the Duma, and we talked to a number of its members a short while after the Beslan outrage in which a number of children were taken hostage. The Russians asked us how we got the balance right, and I do not think that any of the British parliamentarians could say, hand on heart, that they were sure that we had ever done so.
Throughout the years when we were dealing with IRA terrorism and, more recently, as we have tried to deal with the worldwide problem, it has been difficult to strike the right balance. It is clear, however, that there is a better chance of doing so if we in Parliament—here and in the other place—have proper debates on these matters. Sometimes, we have legislated in haste, for understandable reasons, and have not got the resulting legislation entirely correct. In other areas of legislation, such as the legislation to enable local government to fight terrorism in various ways, the law of unintended consequences has come into play. Legislation passed through this House very quickly—probably under a guillotine—was used for outturns and objectives that Parliament did not intend. It is a pity that we are back today because the Government did not originally introduce a Bill to overturn the Supreme Court ruling.
The Supreme Court has not been going that long, and I suspect that there will always be some tensions between such a body and Parliament. Nevertheless, given its short history, it is a pity that we are already having to legislate to change its decision. As hon. Members have said, that decision was well considered and the judgments raised some important concerns. As I am not a lawyer, I will not go into those tonight.
When we are fighting terrorism, we have to act quickly and, yes, cutting off funds is an important component. However, we must also have a regime that is fair. As is the nature of things, reasonable suspicion is—as we have heard—a relatively low test. The world being as it is, sometimes we get the wrong person. People can end up caught in web without being involved in terrorism, but these proposals are so draconian that that would have a major impact on their family life.
Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Robert Syms
(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 c681 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 19:55:05 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_624668
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_624668
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_624668