The noble and learned Lord puts a rather sinister construction on this clause. I do not want to add to my noble friend’s discomfort, but I need some persuading that Clause 39 is necessary given the width and nature of the sanctions and the purposes. It was important that the Government resisted the attempt to narrow “a foreign policy objective”, which was an amendment that we debated on the previous occasion, but “a foreign policy objective” gives the Government quite a lot of room for manoeuvre having identified an appropriate sanction. While I suspect that Clause 39 was inserted as a “just in case” provision rather than to give Ministers extraordinary power of the sort that has been discovered, it nevertheless remains at least open in theory to a Minister to exercise power in a way I think all noble Lords find difficult to accept.
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Faulks
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 29 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 c718 Session
2017-19Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2018-04-16 11:36:56 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2017-11-29/17112956000113
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2017-11-29/17112956000113
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2017-11-29/17112956000113