Results 1-20 of 2,026 for speaker:David Howarth

Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill (Allocation of Time): Clause 3 — Short title, commencement and extent (8 Feb 2010)

David Howarth: The Liberal Democrats will not oppose the Bill on Third Reading either, because we did not oppose it on Second Reading, but we are still disturbed by the speed with which it has gone through the House today, which is why we voted against the allocation of time motion. We believe that more time was available at this stage to allow us to consider the Bill more carefully. We shall now turn our...

Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill (Allocation of Time): Clause 1 — Temporary validity of certain Orders in Council (8 Feb 2010)

David Howarth: The Minister made a legal point at the start of her speech, but I do not think she could fully have considered the judgment by Lord Phillips in the Supreme Court, who clearly considered the position under al-Jedda and the human rights position before discussing the individual merits of the cases against either order. What the Minister put to the Committee was not the legal position, but...

Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill (Allocation of Time): Clause 1 — Temporary validity of certain Orders in Council (8 Feb 2010)

David Howarth: I will be very brief. I simply want to say that although we did not object to the Bill receiving its Second Reading, we find the methods adopted by the Government in clause 1, especially now that they have not been amended in any significant way- [ Interruption. ]

Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill (Allocation of Time): Clause 1 — Temporary validity of certain Orders in Council (8 Feb 2010)

David Howarth: Thank you, Mrs. Heal. As I was saying, although we did not vote against Second Reading and we accept the need for action on this issue, we are disappointed that the Government seem so obdurate, in resisting any suggestion to improve how the main part of the Bill-clause 1-works, and especially in their utter complacency on the issue of human rights and their refusal to accept the need for...

Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill (Allocation of Time): Clause 1 — Temporary validity of certain Orders in Council (8 Feb 2010)

David Howarth: I beg to move amendment 4, page 1, leave out lines 9 to 11 and insert- 'are declared to have the same legal force as primary legislation'.

Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill (Allocation of Time): Clause 1 — Temporary validity of certain Orders in Council (8 Feb 2010)

David Howarth: All the amendments and the new clause stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). They bring together two separate issues-one that relates to amendment 4 and one that relates to amendment 5 and the new clause. The other amendments are simply consequential. Having heard the debate in the House all day, I feel that the issue that concerns amendment 5 and...

Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill (Allocation of Time): Clause 1 — Temporary validity of certain Orders in Council (8 Feb 2010)

David Howarth: Not quite, because of what clause 2 does. To achieve that effect, we would have to vote against clause 2. I am not so annoyed about clause 2 as I am about clause 1, because clause 2 is there to protect the banks, rather than the Government. I know that the banks are unpopular, but it seems reasonable that having relied on what the Government did, the banks should be protected from any...

Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill (Allocation of Time): Clause 1 — Temporary validity of certain Orders in Council (8 Feb 2010)

David Howarth: First, let me say that it would have been better if we had dealt with all the amendments before us in one large group. Amendment 1 is an attempt to introduce a stricter sunset clause. I can see the Government's point that the end of March is very soon and there is little likelihood of full consideration of the replacement Bill being made in that time, but there needs to be a tighter timetable...

Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill (Allocation of Time): Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill (8 Feb 2010)

David Howarth: Will the Minister give way?

Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill (Allocation of Time): Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill (8 Feb 2010)

David Howarth: Will the Minister give way?

Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill (Allocation of Time): Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill (8 Feb 2010)

David Howarth: The crucial point that the Minister seems to have missed, which was mentioned by both the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and me, is that the Supreme Court thought that because of the al-Jedda case it could not consider the human rights position. The point is not that it was finding in favour of the Government, but that it could not consider the issue at all.

Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill (Allocation of Time): Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill (8 Feb 2010)

David Howarth: It is important for the House to understand why the Supreme Court did not consider the human rights aspect of the legislation. It thinks, and thought, that, because of the al-Jedda case, the implementation of Security Council resolutions takes precedence over all human rights under the European convention. That seems to be a wholly different position from saying that it is all right in human...

Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill (Allocation of Time): Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill (8 Feb 2010)

David Howarth: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to the fundamental rights aspect of the orders, may I bring him back to an earlier quote from the Supreme Court's judgment, which stated that A and K have disappeared? How does it help the fight against terrorism that people who are suspected of taking part in terrorism simply go underground?

Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill (Allocation of Time): Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill (8 Feb 2010)

David Howarth: That is the crucial point. The Court made its decision because the order undermines fundamental rights. The Court was making the point that the Government should not undermine fundamental rights, and especially not without any parliamentary procedure. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be rearguing his case before the Supreme Court. He does not seem to accept the fact that he lost the case.

Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill (Allocation of Time): Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill (8 Feb 2010)

David Howarth: That brings us to the issue of what the Government are doing now about the Supreme Court's judgment. Why have they not simply used the 2001 Act to freeze the assets of such individuals, as Lord Hope in the Supreme Court said specifically that, in his opinion, that Act would apply?

Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill (Allocation of Time): Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill (8 Feb 2010)

David Howarth: I am referring to sections 4 and 5 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Lord Hope said that the freezing regime in that Act applied to the individuals before the Court in the Ahmed case.

Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill (Allocation of Time): Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill (8 Feb 2010)

David Howarth: This sounds like a point of detail, but it is crucial to what is happening today. Section 5 of the 2001 Act applies the freezing regime not just to individuals abroad, but to any individual in this country who is assisting that individual. What the Minister says applies only to circumstances where the whole plot is domestic. That did not seem to apply in the cases before the Court; how many...

[Mr. Gary Streeter in the Chair] — Human Rights (4 Feb 2010)

David Howarth: I would like to add another observation that I have made over the past few years about trust breaking down. The Minister referred to situations in which the police communicate perfectly well with demonstrators, but those tend to be traditional processions where the police understand what the demonstrators are up to and the rules of the game. However, when demonstrators are doing things other...

[Mr. Gary Streeter in the Chair] — Human Rights (4 Feb 2010)

David Howarth: The problem, as I observed it in the G20 situation, was that both police and protesters assumed that any contact with the other side would reveal information to the other side, in some kind of tactical battle in which the police's main objective appeared to the protesters to be to prevent the protest from happening at all. Therefore, it is important that the starting point changes, and that...

[Mr. Gary Streeter in the Chair] — Human Rights (4 Feb 2010)

David Howarth: rose-