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
I can reassure the noble Baroness that the amendment is unnecessary as Clause 1 already provides for this. The Bill does not provide for criminal liability for any acts or omissions before the Act comes into force. For the period between 4 February and the commencement of the Bill, failure to comply with the asset freeze will not be a criminal offence. The Bill makes that clear in Clause 2(5)(b). In any case, Clause 1 sets out clearly that the provisions of the Bill have effect only when the Bill has received Royal Assent. Therefore, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. I am very happy to have been able to clear that up.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 717 c673-4
- 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 19:56:47 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_621249
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_621249
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_621249