Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill [HL]

Briefly, I can say only to the noble and learned Minister: plus ça change. Here I am, supporting in what I am about to say the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in his amendment. I do so in rough terms; I am not in any way inviting him to test the opinion of the House on it today. This is surely a matter that can be dealt with in some more satisfactory way than that. The noble Lord seems to have a point, backed up as he is by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I ask the Minister this simple question. Presumably he will argue that, "““such order as it considers appropriate””," includes damages. If the answer to that question is yes, can there be any reason not to put that in the Bill in express terms, for the reasons stated by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick?