Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 3 November 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Terrorism Bill.


Terrorism Bill

The clause extends the existing definition in the Terrorism Act 2000. My recollection is that no one in the House objected to the powers taken in 2000 to proscribe organisations promoting terrorism. However, clause 21 implies that the Government have had a difficulty—that they have wanted to proscribe an organisation but because what it was doing was glorifying past terrorism, they were unable to do so. The Minister may be able to cite some particular organisation, or at lest to describe anonymously some problem that has arisen involving an organisation that ought to have been proscribed, but as its activities were based on glorification of martyrs, past causes, freedom fighters or whatever, in some other part of the world, it could not be proscribed. I am not aware of the Government having been prevented from using their powers in such circumstances. Can the Minister let us know what provoked this measure, and why it is necessary to extend the definition? What are the organisations that now get through a loophole that will be closed by the strange introduction of the concept of ““glorifying”” as a particularly worrying action?


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
438 c991 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Criminal investigation Asylum Companies Directors Liability Incitement International law Nuclear weapons Protest Proscribed organisations Radioactive materials Terrorism Training Trespass Encouragement of terrorism
Legislation
Terrorism Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk