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

No, the basis for the judgment for not giving us a stay was that the Court did not have a legal basis to do that, given that it had quashed the original orders. Many hon. Members have talked today about not rushing into legislating on issues of importance. The problem that I have is trying fundamentally to rewrite our existing scheme with a bare minimum of discussion and scrutiny in the few hours that we have had tonight. I look forward to debating the substance of the hon. Member for Cambridge's proposals in due course, but the time to debate such significant changes is when we consider the permanent legislation in detail, not now. Our priority now is to restore our existing regime, as the Bill seeks to do, and to create time for us to consider in greater depth how the permanent legislation should be framed. On that basis, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
505 c713-4 
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