Proceeding contribution from Baroness Noakes (Conservative) 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 accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has said about the advantages of the 2001 Act compared with using the orders. On Second Reading, I asked why the 2001 Act was not used for terrorism purposes, if that is what it was put there for, and why it could not be used for this purpose. That said, I have some problems with the noble Baroness’s amendment. Although it might set up a new regime going forward, I do not see how it copes with all those who are currently covered by the designations that have already been made under the existing orders. It seems to create a very severe problem. It may well be that, as a permanent solution to the problem, the noble Baroness’s amendment has the core of a way forward, but in the context of dealing with the temporary problem caused by the Supreme Court’s judgment, it seems to create more problems than it solves.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 717 c675
- 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 19:56:45 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_621253
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_621253
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_621253