My Lords, I had been waiting for the noble Lord, Lord McNally, to speak, so have come in rather later than perhaps I should have. The arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, are compelling. I would throw one other word into the mix: “expedience”. Under the Bill as drafted, it might be thought appropriate because it is expedient to make a provision, but that is not good enough here. These powers are so draconian that nothing short of necessity alone could justify their exercise. Therefore, I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said: unless the Minister can give a convincing illustration of a regulation which is justifiably expedient but short of necessity, we cannot possibly allow the Bill to go forward in its present form.
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 21 November 2017.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
787 c112 Session
2017-19Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2018-04-16 11:31:58 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2017-11-21/17112175000215
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2017-11-21/17112175000215
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2017-11-21/17112175000215