Skip to main content

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 have not given notice that I wish to speak on whether Clause 2 should stand part of the Bill, but I have one small query that I hope the noble and learned Baroness will be able to answer. In Clause 2(2), we deal with things, "““done or omitted by a person other than the Treasury that would be valid, lawful or effectual if””," three orders had been effectively made. During the passage of the Bill in the other place, the Government tabled an amendment to Clause 1(2) to add additional orders relating to the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and overseas territories. Why are the Government not extending the protection of Clause 2 to those three orders that they added yesterday in the other place? They allow temporary validity to be extended to them. Why are they handled separately?


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
717 c678-9 
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