Proceeding contribution from Earl of Onslow (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 7 December 2009. It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (References to Financial Investigators) (Amendment) Order 2009.
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (References to Financial Investigators) (Amendment) Order 2009
The noble Lord ended by saying he "hoped". Hope springs eternal. It is worth summing up, as I understand it, what this debate has been about. It has not been about whether there should be powers to seize goods from the ungodly who have ungodlily taken them from the public. It has not been about getting the big drug barons to cough up their ill gotten gains. It has not been about big people cheating on intellectual property. It has not been about any of those things. It has been about whether the powers of the state are being unnecessarily increased. The noble Lord, right at the end, said that the Home Office sent a circular round when it heard that the anti-terrorist powers were being misused. He hoped that was satisfactory. It was not satisfactory. People are still rocketed for taking photographs of St Paul’s Cathedral. When the man to whom this attempt was made complained to the police assistant—or whatever she was called—she said that none of the other people who she had told not to take photographs of St Paul’s Cathedral had complained. This insidious entry of powers by the Government to reduce the liberty of the subject is why we are here. We are here to protect those liberties—they are precious beyond anything. My noble friend Lady Buscombe picked up late again, when some of us were perhaps a bit dozy, on the Civil Contingencies Act. That was a happy little Act, which at one stage allowed a junior Minister to repeal habeas corpus while Parliament was in recess. This is a habit that this Government have got into, and it is an appallingly bad habit. I thank immensely the noble Lord, Lord Neill, for helping guide me through the constitution of the Holy Roman Empire, because that was what he was doing only in its more complicated form. I say to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, both of whom I respect, that the reason I want to divide the House is because the Government perhaps might pay a little bit more attention if we divide the House than if we do not. The problem has not been allayed. My fears have not been allayed. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House. Division on the Motion. Contents 182; Not-Contents 118.[The Tellers for the Contents reported 182 votes; the Clerks recorded 181 names.] Motion agreed.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 715 c914-5
- Session
- 2009-10
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Criminal investigation Fraud Financial institutions Home Office Local government Powers Proceeds of crime Money laundering Staff Transport for London Serious Fraud Office Department of Health Gangmasters Licensing Authority Department for Regional Development (Northern Ireland Executive) Intellectual Property Office NHS Counter Fraud Service
- Legislation
- Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (References to Financial Investigators) (Amendment) Order 2009
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-03-06 08:22:16 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_599915
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_599915
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_599915