I will be brief. I wish to make basically two points, both of which are relevant to the issues under discussion, but have a wider application.
First, I shall say a few words about the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. Lord Hope referred in his judgment the other day to the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and the relationship between Parliament and the Executive—in short, to the ability of this House, through Back Benchers and Oppositions, to scrutinise what Governments are doing, whether in legislation, Orders in Council or whatever else.
I first entered this House 27 years ago. I believe that those 27 years have seen a diminution in our ability to hold the Executive to account and to scrutinise them properly and at length. The late Lord Weatherill, the famous Speaker, told me once that he kept a record of those speeches in this House that actually altered the course of events through the power of their arguments, and there were many in those days. Can you believe it, Mr. Deputy Speaker: speaker after speaker in this House arguing something, and the Government turning round at the end and saying, ““They're right—we've lost the argument””? That is what I mean by parliamentary scrutiny. Compared with 25 or 30 years ago, we are impotent in this House when it comes to doing the job for which we were elected.
After parliamentary scrutiny, the next most important point I wish to mention concerns judicial remedy, which has been covered by many other speakers today. Designation and freezing orders are very serious matters indeed. They can have a real effect on a person's life, and not just in the short term, but in the long term. Over in the Council of Europe, which I attend from time to time, we discuss human rights. We have representatives from many different European countries, some of which have good records, some of which have bad records. A year or two ago, a Swiss lawyer, Dick Marty, brought up United Nations blacklists at the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, and we had a report on them. He told us what they were and what they meant. Through the United Nations, somebody could be put on a blacklist in relation to terrorist matters, and have their assets frozen and all the rest of it. He told us of a case in Switzerland where the restrictions were such that the person concerned could not leave his own canton, if that is another word for village.
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 c688-9 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 19:55:03 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_624677
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_624677
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_624677