Proceeding contribution from Paul Goggins (Labour) 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
Indeed, there may be other legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud speculated about someone who might be authorised to be on a specific site, for example, through working there, but had a malevolent purpose and might be a terrorist. That person would be guilty of other offences and charged appropriately. People who trespass might be guilty of other offences and charged appropriately. I hope that I can offer the clarity that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) seeks. Her constituents, to whom the police may have spoken and intervened in their activities, would not be guilty of trespass under the clause if they were outside the perimeter fence, even if they were on a designated site. Through our amendments, we tried to provide clarity in the law, which will be helpful to constituents such as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 438 c1038
- 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
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 22:44:26 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_275503
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_275503
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_275503