Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill [HL]

My Lords, my apologies for ignoring the wonderful country of Caledonia, which I love very much. It was a particular gaffe, given the presence on the two Front Benches of eminent Scottish lawyers. What I am going to say should be construed as constructive criticism, which is appropriate from these Benches. My noble friend referred to the human rights aspects of designations and how they had figured in the Government’s thinking in inserting the appeal procedure. The significance of the licensing regime must not be downplayed; the human rights aspects of the licences are enormously important. The Government have explained why they consider that a judicial review will be adequate to deal with licences, but the Minister has not explained—perhaps he does not think it necessary—why the appeal route is being rejected. I ask him these questions to get them on to the record. Perhaps I will come back to them next time. Clause 22(2) allows for a person affected by a decision to apply for the decision to be set aside. The phrase, "““the decision should be set aside””," is in Clause 22(3). I do not know whether ““set aside”” covers setting aside a decision and imposing an alternative, which might be varying a licence. If so, that might answer the point, but I suspect that it might not cover it; it is certainly not clear. Clause 22(4) says that this is the condition for the court giving whatever order it determines if it decides that a decision should be set aside. I want to be reassured that the court can take a view not to set aside the licence but to vary the terms of the licence. I do not know whether the Minister wants to comment on that at this point.