Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Pannick (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 9 February 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill on Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill.


Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill

My Lords, I take a different view from that of the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan. We are being asked today to approve a temporary measure on the basis that we will not have a proper opportunity fully to debate the substantive measures. I think that we all accept that those substantive measures will have a very serious effect on the individuals concerned. It is therefore incumbent on the Committee to ensure that the sunset clause is as near to today as is reasonably practicable. As I see it, the only issue is how long it will take as a matter of practicality before the substantive Bill can be properly scrutinised. That covers pre-legislative scrutiny, as well as the debate in this House and in the other place. I am surprised that the Government take the view that it will take as long as another 10 months for that to occur, even allowing for the general election and the Summer Recess. I suggest to the Committee that it is incumbent on the Minister to explain—with respect, he has not yet explained this, nor was it explained in the other House yesterday—why it is not practical for Parliament to address the substantive matters more speedily than a sunset clause of 31 December suggests.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
717 c664 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disclosure of information Appeals Assets Channel Islands Finance Licensing EU law Judgements Terrorism United Nations Supreme Court Time limits UN resolutions Freezing of assets Sunset clauses
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk