Proceeding contribution from Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Labour) 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 respectfully agree with the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. The debate that we have just had is illuminating because it identifies how complex and different the views expressed on this issue are. It is clear that the amendments proposed by the noble Lord seek to bring about a fundamental change in the nature of the terrorist asset-freezing regime that we have. I make no comment for the moment on whether they are soundly based: I simply say that that is their purpose. We will not be able to deal with them adequately—I would almost say ““at all””—this evening. Justice should be done to them, because we know from the Supreme Court decision that it wanted Parliament to have an opportunity for have a mature, reasoned and seasoned debate. That is what we have decided to do in relation to the management of the Bill. We disagree with the noble Lord’s premise. The amendments that he seeks to pursue concern two issues. The first advocates putting asset freezing in primary legislation rather than Orders in Council, in the belief that this is necessary to restore access to Convention rights. The second removes the asset-freezing decision from the Executive and gives it to the judiciary. That is a very significant change. Therefore, I agree with what was said by all other noble Lords: the point was made by the noble Baroness Lady Noakes, the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, and, in effect, by my noble and learned friend Lord Boyd, who pointed to the fact that we have not dealt with Scotland. When you stand at the Dispatch Box, that is always something that you fail to do at your peril. Salient points were also made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. All the points recognised that the matter is complex, difficult and will take time to discuss. Notwithstanding the huge power of your Lordships’ Committee, I do not think any of us believes that we will be able to do it tonight. Perhaps I may say, with the consent of the Committee, that although I assure the noble Lord that I have many pages of explanation about why there are difficulties in what he proposes, I will save the Committee from that delicious torment and ask that we postpone it for another day.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 717 c671
- 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
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 19:56:48 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_621240
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_621240
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_621240