Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill (Allocation of Time) — Clause 1 — Temporary validity of certain Orders in Council — 8 Feb 2010 at 21:00
The majority of MPs voted not to introduce an appeal process for the Government's asset-freezing regime.
During the debate which preceded the vote Cambridge MP David Howarth spoke strongly against the provisions currently in place saying:
- Under the order as it stands, the Treasury, acting on the basis solely of reasonable suspicion, and without any prior supervision by the courts, can subject a person to the full asset-freezing regime. There is absolutely no appeal. There is judicial review, and we have debated its adequacy, but the conclusion that I and many other right hon. and hon. Members have come to in the debate is that judicial review is not adequate. There is not only no provision for an appeal, but no limit to the number of times that a direction, which lasts a year, may be renewed. Effectively, that is an indeterminate-life-sentence.
Mr Howarth explained the purpose of the amendment which was the subject of this vote:
- Its effect is to alter the process by which a person becomes subject to the asset-freezing regime, to change the length of time that a person can be subject to the regime on the basis of reasonable suspicion alone, and to introduce appeal mechanisms both for the bringing into force of the asset-freezing regime and for the licensing regime-a point that has been mentioned in the debate.
The amendment was defeated, Mr Howarth and his Liberal Democrat colleagues found themselves in the minority when they voted.
MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party are marked in red. Also shows which MPs were ministers at the time of this vote. You can also see every eligible MP including those who did not vote in this division.