I thank my noble friend for this amendment. As she has indicated, the effect of the amendment would be to make the grounds for a request under this part into an objective test by requiring it to be necessary, rather than—as provided and drafted as present—a subjective test. My noble friend would do that through the removal of the reference to the Treasury believing it to be necessary. I understand the concern that prompts the amendment. The clause makes whether to seek certain information a matter of subjective judgment for the Treasury. However, if this is challenged we believe that, as a consequence, the court will look at the reasonableness of the belief that it was necessary, rather than at whether it was objectively necessary. It is a high test and threshold for there to have to be a belief that the information must be necessary. Ultimately, whether the information is needed or not it is a matter for the Executive. However, as drafted, there is a high threshold to be satisfied, but it is nevertheless considerably preferable to the objective test that would result from my noble friend’s amendment. Therefore, I urge her to withdraw her amendment.
Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
(Liberal Democrat)
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 c195-6 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 18:26:32 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_666575
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_666575
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_666575