Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Garnier (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 20 February 2017. It occurred during Debate on bill on Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill [Lords].


Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill [Lords]

My hon. Friend anticipates me: that was the fourth point I was going to make in due course. The difficulty in his making that point—I am grateful that, either through his own research or thanks to assistance from other hon. Friends, he has been able to make it to me—is that those are statutory instruments, which were never debated on the Floor of the House. I am not even sure they were debated in Committee. The whole point about passing criminal legislation that could lead to an individual being sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment or, if a company, to an unlimited fine is that we ought to pass good law. We ought to debate it and we ought to allow an idea to be tested, sometimes to destruction. The Afghanistan and Iraq orders that my hon. Friend talks about have not been tested in this place. The 2003 Act was tested in this place and this Bill is being tested in this place, and if the Government do not enjoy that, well I am sorry for them.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
621 c797 
Session
2016-17
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Databases Armed conflict Cultural heritage Exports Protection Treaties Electronic warfare Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict
Legislation
Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill (HL) 2016-17
Iraq (United Nations Sanctions) Order 2003
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on hansard.parliament.uk