Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Labour) in the House of Commons on Monday, 8 February 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill.


Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill

I will in a moment. The court struck the orders down purely on the grounds that they went beyond the scope of the UN Act. The hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth), the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and others quoted what was said by the Supreme Court judges. Lord Brown said:"““I am unimpressed by the alternative grounds on which the Order is challenged, those of certainty and proportionality. Primary legislation introducing this same asset-freezing regime could not have been declared incompatible on those grounds.””" Lord Mance, with whom Lord Phillips agreed, said:"““I am at present also unpersuaded that the content of the Orders could be challenged on grounds of lack of proportionality””," although he did say that he need express no final view.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
505 c697 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Disclosure of information Assets Crown dependencies Channel Islands Finance Licensing Human rights Legal aid scheme EU law Isle of Man National security Parliamentary scrutiny Terrorism United Nations Supreme Court UN resolutions al Qaeda Taliban Freezing of assets Sunset clauses
Legislation
Terrorist Asset-freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill 2009-10
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk