I am invited to withdraw, and the Minister has always been remarkably persuasive when I appeared against him in court. There are a couple of points though. First, one cannot write off the Antipodes with a wave of the hand in the way that the Minister sought to do; they face the same problems and have produced imaginative responses.
With regard to the question of imposing a duty in respect of compensation, true it is that that differs from the 2001 Act; but it does not avoid the dissonance that the 2001 Act actually refers to a possibility—that is, a discretion in relation to compensation. I invite the Minister at least to consider whether there might be a similar discretion, if not a duty, in the Bill.
In relation to the safeguards already in place, one may obtain damages whether one is the designated person or a non-designated person. I am still slightly confused as to where in the Bill one is to find this. If it is to the Appeal Court that one must go, then not only is there the issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, raised—we will find out in due course what the answer to that is—but there is also the question of how the appeal court is going to deal with damages. As the Minister well knows, simply because one asserts a damage, it does not follow that it will be accepted by the authorities. Is the appeal court to have a fact-finding role in relation to damages?
In relation to judicial review, again, for a party who is not the designated person to raise their own judicial review and proceed to damages is perhaps not necessarily—as a matter of law, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, suggests—the most obvious way of acquiring damages. Again, it would be helpful in due course to have some clarification on that. I welcome the Minister’s embrace of the Human Rights Act, for which I know he has a strong regard, although it has not always been demonstrated by other members of the coalition. The way in which this is to proceed leaves a certain gap as to where the Human Rights Act will go in these issues. I will accede to the Minister’s suggestion that I withdraw the amendment, but I also note that we may well return to this on Report.
Amendment 46 withdrawn.
Clause 13 : Licences
Clause 13 : Licences
Amendments 47 to 51 not moved.
Clause 13 agreed.
Clauses 14 agreed.
Amendment 52 not moved.
Clause 15 agreed.
Clause 16 : Powers to request information
Amendment 53
Clause 16 : Powers to request information
Amendment 53
Moved by
Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 6 October 2010.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
721 c194-5 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 18:26:29 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_666572
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_666572
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_666572